/civ4xg/ - Strategy/4X General

Can we just gas all the spider and ant fuckers?

Where can I see the ethics each faction in Stellaris has?

What is the OP spider from? Why do some people get so upset about it?

File: 145684576947.png (690KB, 459x605px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 459x605px

REMOVE BUG

homeworld best 4x

>>174279298
bug did nothing wrong

>>174279256

Contacts tab , near the situation log

File: __Kumo says Noooo Waaaaaaay.jpg (20KB, 289x192px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 289x192px

>>174279289
Because SOME PEOPLE still believe that bugs and arachnids want to take over planets controlled by the federation, and are using the Buenos Aire attentat to justify their aggressive agenda.

It goes without saying that spiders have nothing to do with the Buenos Aire bombardement.

#SpidersLivesMatter

>>174279421
That's for the aliens in the galaxy, I mean factions in my empire.

>>174279443
What mango is the image from

>>174279289
It's 4chins. Regardless of what it is, anything will make someone massively butthurt.

>>174279515
If you hover over the embrace button it'll tell you.

1st for ants

File: 1492463498388.jpg (238KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 800x600px

>>174279562
It's "Kumo Desu ga, Nani ka?"

A web novel that got adapted in a manga. It's intended to be another deconstruction of the "NEET gamer find himself reincarnated in a RPG world and make everyone his bitch" fad. The writing is decent, the translations are pretty shitty, and the manga makes the spider way too cute as opposed to the disgusting monster she is in the novel.

She also like coming out of the screen to attack you.

real combat in stellaris when

>>174279219
Yes, and your entire argument is "There must be something we don't know"

My argument is: "What do we do if there isn't?"

>>174279457
>Not him, but fuck this line of thought. Thinking that "Our doom is inevitable" is in any way a possibility for the purposes of decision making should not even be considered.
So you're going to live forever?

>Any conclusion which presupposes failure as an inevitable result is, shockingly enough, doomed to fail.
So you're going to live forever?

>>174279680
Is the novel in english?

>>174279614
Yes thank you, what a weird place to put them in

>>174279735
An animal fights and struggles until it dies, instead of giving up to lie down dead.

>>174279756
It has several translations of varied quality. I think the best one is blastron01's on tumblr, but it's also the slowest one. Otherwise, there's novelplanet.

But keep in mind that it was a webnovel to begin with, so there's no official translation. I heard it's turning into a light novel, so we might get one.

>>174279735
For fucks sake my original point was that claiming oil is the only thing worth investing in is retarded. Your point is that because theres a chance other things may not be as good we should just regress to a pre-industrial society that would be impossible without some form of severe population reduction.

>reply to other guy
Thats not a response to what he said, you're saying that because some things may not be in reach we should just give in.

Even your example is flawed with the amount of money that goes into medical and life extension research.

>>174279934
But will you die eventually, yes or no?

I know you'll avoid it, because it fucks your entire point.

There are problems in this universe for which there are no solutions. Accepting that is the first step in growing up as a human being.

Now, will you die eventually?

>>174279735
>So you're going to live forever?
Don't be a cheeky little cunt, fag. "Our" is explicitly referring to human civilization as a whole.

Additionally, I never stipulated that "success" needed to be likely, only possible. Even today, it's """possible""" that indefinite life extension will become for humans to avoid natural death. That's one conclusion in which success is a possibility, but not necessarily likely.

On a final point, you're also making the assumption that individual death is, in fact, failure. I would argue that it is not necessarily so, but the exact definition of a person's success as a human varies from person to person.

>>174279941
Thanks anon.

>tfw we're still /Renewable Energy General/

>>174280095
>becoming a nihilist is part of growing up
Are you 12?

>>174280095
I'm the guy you responded to from the last thread, this is my post >>174280123
The anon you responded to is someone else entirely.

>>174279735
>My argument is: "What do we do if there isn't?"
your argument a shit tbqh

File: 1474924483806.jpg (71KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x366px

>>174280128
No problem. And remember : spiders are friendly! Give them a hug!

>>174280095
Your issue is that you think that it's up to you what problems are the ones that cannot be overcome, and so you think you have the wisdom to declare when others should lie down and die.

>>174280078
>For fucks sake my original point was that claiming oil is the only thing worth investing in is retarded. Your point is that because theres a chance other things may not be as good we should just regress to a pre-industrial society that would be impossible without some form of severe population reduction.
I am assuming oil will run out while we are still searching for the perfect solution and nuclear war will fuck us over much harder than a willing regression to agrarian societies.

>Thats not a response to what he said, you're saying that because some things may not be in reach we should just give in.
So you don't live life like you could die, because an afterlife might exist, or because immortality drugs might be invented?

>Even your example is flawed with the amount of money that goes into medical and life extension research.
Oh god. You're like an animal, you don't even have the capacity to realize your own mortality.

>these two retards
jesus fucking christ

File: 2.jpg (39KB, 557x374px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 557x374px

>>174279735
>we might fail
>so we shouldn't try

>>174279735
>My argument is: "What do we do if there isn't?"
Then we're fucked and failure is assured.
That's an unproductive and useless position to hold, and thus, we must hold true to the idea that "there's something we don't know."

Failure is only assured once you give up, and acknowledging that there is no possibility of success is the surest form of giving up.

>>174280404
>So you don't live life like you could die, because an afterlife might exist, or because immortality drugs might be invented?
Nice misrepresentation, nigger.
Of course we all live death like we could all die; death is an omnipresent foil to life, and it is always present in some shape or form. The point is that there is the possibility, no matter how minute, of life.

not the anon you are talking but you look like these 16yo who suddenly become nihilist without even reading nietzsche, shit, dont be so obsequed with death and mortality, the point of nihilism is not that nothing has value, but that everything has value.

>>174280191
Accepting death =/= denying meaning.

>>174280123
No, you made a blanket statement that anyone talking about doom or certainty is mistaken. If that is the case, you cannot believe you will ever die, because that is doom, that is fate, that is destined and certain to happen.

>>174280402
All i'm saying is we should prepare for the worst. The attitude you're invoking reminds me of trailer trash that wastes every penny they earn but plays the lottery.

>>174280404
>Oh god. You're like an animal, you don't even have the capacity to realize your own mortality.
Thats a bit of a stretch, thinking theres a chance indefinite life extension will be achieved is the same as thinking I'm immortal?

>So you don't live life like you could die
Another massive stretch, saying some things might not be impossible so we shouldn't give in isn't the same as saying we should presume we're immortal.

>willing regression to agrarian societies
A willing regression is not possible, how fucking autistic do you have to be to think the majority of humanity will peacefully die off so we can achieve a pre-industrial society.

>>174280404
half of these are just random points attached to replies

>>174280490
>Then we're fucked and failure is assured.
No, we can adjust our expectations and simply use less. If we don't do it willingly then nuclear war from resource shortage will do it regardless.

>>174280681
We have a far better chance of life if we reduce now, rather than waiting for nuclear war to do it for us.

>>174280687
Anyone who says that Nietzsche was a nihilist has never read Nietzsche.

>one autismo arguing with the entire thread
This is actually impressive

>>174280695
>No, you made a blanket statement that anyone talking about doom or certainty is mistaken. If that is the case, you cannot believe you will ever die, because that is doom, that is fate, that is destined and certain to happen.
Don't tell me what I said; I said what I said, not what you said I said.

I said that any conclusion which presupposes failure as a 100% certainty is a useless conclusion that serves no useful purpose, and must be discarded in favor of, or refined to become, a conclusion which allows for some possibility to success.

Death is VERY likely to happen. It is nearly assured, by my current knowledge. Whether it be age, cancer, or some coked up nigger in the city, I'm probably going to die some time within the next century. But, there is the possibility that I wont. That is the point that I am trying to make.

And, again, this is also hitching on the assertion that death of an individual is necessarily a failure of that individual.

>All i'm saying is we should prepare for the worst.
If the worst is certain doom, then there's no use preparing for it! That's the point!

>mfw I hid ONE post
>suddenly half the thread disappeared
Wait, what the fuck just happened?

File: 1474162964779.jpg (20KB, 342x316px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 342x316px

i just wanted to speak about space based games

>>174280780
>Thats a bit of a stretch, thinking theres a chance indefinite life extension will be achieved is the same as thinking I'm immortal?
It certainly gives you a lot in common with the devoutly religious.

>Another massive stretch, saying some things might not be impossible so we shouldn't give in isn't the same as saying we should presume we're immortal.
So even though there's a chance we could save everything with renewables, we should still reduce now just in case?

>A willing regression is not possible, how fucking autistic do you have to be to think the majority of humanity will peacefully die off so we can achieve a pre-industrial society.
Then we have chosen Nuclear War. I had hoped we were capable of more than that.

File: 1385144696190.gif (472KB, 500x310px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 500x310px

>Have absolutely nothing to do in this game because of a forced ten year peace treaty when I didn't even get to attack the fuck.

>>174281115
One guy is trying to argue that we should give up as a species because theres a chance that we might not manage to replace oil.

>>174280960
>No, we can adjust our expectations and simply use less.
Then that's not certain doom! That's not assured failure! Are you actually retarded, or just pretending?
"Reducing our consumption" is one method by which to achieve success; no one here has been arguing to just blindly roll into the future because it will all just magically work out in the end.

File: ebin.jpg (44KB, 550x404px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x404px

>>174281167
>It certainly gives you a lot in common with the devoutly religious.

>>174280404
>You're like an animal
He wants to be like a lobster or a jellyfish, two animals that are outright immortal.

>>174281157
Well fuck you, this existential philosophy general now!

>>174281221
but there's just too fucking many options, we just didnt abandoned oil because of the oil industry
>bioenergy
>nuclear energy
>wind energy
>solar energy
>thermal energy
energy defitivaly is not a problem, the problem is that we are divided, we must all unite, under one single hand, the hand of the empire of man.

>>174281157
No! You will accept that you must die so that a minority can live an agrarian lifestyle and die at the age of 50

>>174281096
>VERY likely
Certain.

>But, there is the possibility that I wont.
Nope. That "possibility" also existed for everyone who is now dead. Didn't help.

>And, again, this is also hitching on the assertion that death of an individual is necessarily a failure of that individual.
That's your definition. It's not a failure when the thing you set out to do is impossible. You can't fail at jumping to the moon.

>If the worst is certain doom, then there's no use preparing for it! That's the point!
The worst is global nuclear war. What i am suggesting is just a life without as many luxuries, which would suck, but nowhere near as much as nuclear war.

File: No shit retard.jpg (196KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x720px

So that's a bit of a dumb question, but /indie/ couldn't help me, so maybe you can : is that any city/base-building game featuring an anthill?
I'm thinking something like XCOM, but without the tactical fights where you lose half your team, or Fallout Shelter but with actual gameplay?

>>174281221
Can't we adapt to a life without oil?
I've been cooking with butter for ages now.

>>174281387
No! Oil is the only good energy source, replacement of it is impossible!

>>174281379
where are the mods
I AM GOING DO MAKE A DENOUNCE!

>>174281335
Lies. I've killed many of both.

>>174281167
>Then we have chosen Nuclear War. I had hoped we were capable of more than that.
That's preferable to being barely civilized savages trapped on this rock until the sun goes out tbqh.

In the short term, regressing to pre-industrial civilization is the best "hope" for humanity.

In the long term, our current path and level of development is our only hope for the survival of humanity on a cosmic scale.

>inb4 humanity won't survive past fifty thousand years
Never presuppose failure.

>>174281451
>not cooking with healthy oils
OH GOD ITS ALREADY STARTED

We can already replace oil. Fuck, 5 yeards ago we got algua that can produce oil. Fast enough to meet basics demand if we REALLY run out


Solar is also getting better and better. My teacher in chemistry was one of the leader in organic transistor, basically printable (like plastics) solar panels. They were around 40% of the desired efficiency (again, 5 years ago, they porbably got closer since then)

If all else fails we got uranium based nuclear for a few 100's then we should have solved thorium problems for another 2k.

>>174281221
When did you give up on perpetual motion machines?

>>174281271
>"Reducing our consumption" is one method by which to achieve success; no one here has been arguing to just blindly roll into the future because it will all just magically work out in the end.
I don't see any national calls or movements to greatly reduce the amount of energy people use. I do see quite a lot advertising new electric cars and solar panels you can buy, and more subsidies for renewable energy.

Which is perfectly understandable, people would rather receive than give.

>can't terraform colonies anymore
well, there goes my purifier playtrhough, in the fucking bin

>>174281451
>I've been cooking with butter for ages now.

Get Mr. Rich Kid over here, using butter!

File: enhanced-25470-1418056453-11.jpg (78KB, 625x416px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 625x416px

>>174281580
Oil tends to jump out of the pan. Butter doesn't.

Plus cows are cute. I like cows. Look at her little nose, I want to boop it.

>>174281732
It's cheap where I live. Actually cheaper than oil.

File: 1492445670323.jpg (43KB, 593x720px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 593x720px

>>174281637
>improvements in non-oil energy sources are as likely as a perpetual motion machine

>>174281578
>That's preferable to being barely civilized savages trapped on this rock until the sun goes out tbqh.
Your selfish choice, not mine.

>In the long term, our current path and level of development is our only hope for the survival of humanity on a cosmic scale.
I never said it had to stop completely. Just that our chances of ever reaching that cosmic scale are infinitely lower if we nuke ourselves to death.

>Never presuppose failure.
That's a terrible bit of logic no matter how nice it sounds. That logic is what gets people to waste their lives on perpetual motion machines.

>>174281605
You shouldn't trust click-bait articles.

They really should increase the rate that Shroud Gods appear at because Jesus fucking Christ you could go multiple games without the opportunity to make a pact with one.

>>174281774
>cows are cute

But also delicious.

>>174281810
You don't need to demonstrate your lack of integrity by twisting my words, you know.

File: file.jpg (130KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 550x413px

>>174281774
I've never really had that be an actual problem, it happens but its not a problem. Besides the way it does that is kind of fun, it feels like you're cooking. Some oils can affect the flavour too.

Olive trees are cute too! Don't you just want to help cultivate it!

post yfw cows go extinct because synthetic meat becomes cheaper and easier to produce

File: ditres.png (88KB, 253x224px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 253x224px

>>174282004
>by comparing improvements in non-oil energy sources to perpetual motion machines I'm not saying they're remotely comparable

File: Czl6vxeXcAEGcS6.jpg large.jpg (160KB, 1080x1068px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1080x1068px

>>174281605
>My teacher in chemistry
Not him, but I had a teacher in high school who believed in the debunked hydrogen engine and the global conspiracy to keep it secret.

>>174281979
True.
Their only flaw is that they're expensive, to get anything from a cow, you need to feed it insane amount of carbon, and it farts a lot too.
Otherwise, it's damn cute.

>>174282037
That's why I do my best to support the dairy industry! I drink two liters of milk each day!
I'm happy NOT being intolerant to lactose!

>>174282037
Wow, a femanon.

>>174281439
>Certain.
Wrong.

>Nope. That "possibility" also existed for everyone who is now dead. Didn't help.
Let us suppose that ten billion people all roll a hundred sided die.
Through sheer luck, not a single one rolls a hundred.
Is rolling a hundred impossible?

What if we made the dice have a trillion faces, and had a hundred billion people roll one dice each. Not a single person rolls a trillion.
Is rolling a trillion impossible?

>That's your definition. It's not a failure when the thing you set out to do is impossible. You can't fail at jumping to the moon.
Ignoring the assumption that death is a certainty, I have a feeling that you're trying to bait me into something like "humans can't fly unassisted naturally, therefor there are impossible scenarios"
No shit there are impossible scenarios if you specifically constrain them to be impossible; good thing is that humans generally figure out ways to get around constraints.
We sure can't jump to the moon unassisted, but we can get there nonetheless.

>The worst is global nuclear war.
You didn't address my point. If the worst possible outcome is certain doom, there is no point in preparing for it. Reducing the number of luxuries we consume is not preparing for nuclear war, it is an attempt to AVERT global nuclear war.
Is English your native language? I feel like you're missing a few important subtleties in this discussion.

This fallen empires stuff looks pretty dumb

They have armies to obliterate the galaxy and they are fallen? The fuck?

Even total war is not as dumb with their deathstacks out of thin air

>>174282146
College prof. I was doing a double with geology due to pure chemistry being dead in my province. Ended up flunking out of both, but that's beside the point.

>>174281861
Trusting doctorate level people is generally fine when it pertains to their field.

>>174282127
>we should give up as a species because theres a chance that we might not manage to replace oil.
It's the "giving up" that i'm addressing. Surely there exist problems in the universe that cannot be solved?

Logically speaking, there's no way to ever prove that anything is impossible. Do you think that means every proposition is automatically correct? Can't prove that oil can't be replaced, so it must be replacable. Can't prove you won't die, so you'll live forever, can't prove god exists, so it must.

It's shitty logic and you can act like a cunt all day but it's still shitty logic.

>>174282165
Theres nothing feminine about enjoying cooking or liking trees. Theres also nothing feminine about my penis.

>>174282146
You should be campaigning for everywhere to open Cow zoos so that synthetic butter and milk doesn't make the cuteness that is cows go extinct.

>>174281439
What you are proposing is a massive reduction in the human population which would result in a nuclear war when people realise their only choice is death.

File: Huh.png (521KB, 832x926px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 832x926px

>>174282396
>synthetic milk
Over my dead body, you fucking piece of shit.

>>174281637
>I don't see any national calls or movements to greatly reduce the amount of energy people use. I do see quite a lot advertising new electric cars and solar panels you can buy, and more subsidies for renewable energy.
Because that's an acceptable alternative?

We can either a) reduce our energy consumption to match energy production or b) increase our energy production to match energy consumption. Both have the same net effect of avoiding an energy crisis.

>>174281861
>Your selfish choice, not mine.
It's the only possible choice

>I never said it had to stop completely. Just that our chances of ever reaching that cosmic scale are infinitely lower if we nuke ourselves to death.
And regressing to a pre-industrial state has the exact same effect; we'd still have to reindustrialize, redevelop, recivilize, just like we already have, except this time with even LESS resources.

We're nearly to the crest of the hill, and we're tired, our legs are shaking and our breath is ragged, but let's just keep going and get over the hump rather than going back to the start.

>That's a terrible bit of logic no matter how nice it sounds. That logic is what gets people to waste their lives on perpetual motion machines.
And for a functionally infinite gain, those individuals decided it was a worthy pursuit of time. While they did fail, there was always the chance of success, that being that our current understanding of physics was wrong.
It was a tiny, infinitesimal probability, but still non-zero.

File: mitterwhyer.jpg (73KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 960x720px

>>174282379
>being able to replace oil is one of the universes unsolvable problems
>nothing can be proved incorrect so investment in alternative energy sources is the same as religion

>>174282365
They got bored of blobbing all over the place and went into holodecks. How long do you last in a gsg before you get bored of blobbing, 2 weeks? They lasted millions of years.

>>174282197
>Wrong.
Jesus isn't going to save you, no matter how much you pray.

>Let us suppose that ten billion people all roll a hundred sided die.
Through sheer luck, not a single one rolls a hundred.
Is rolling a hundred impossible?
We don't know the max value of the dice we're rolling. We, in fact, cannot know that. Bad analogy.

>No shit there are impossible scenarios if you specifically constrain them to be impossible
What do you mean? How do you know anything is impossible?

>We sure can't jump to the moon unassisted, but we can get there nonetheless.
Not a jump, then. You could also say that the laws governing pendulums don't actually work because if you cut the string it behaves differently than a pendulum should.

>You didn't address my point. If the worst possible outcome is certain doom, there is no point in preparing for it.
Oh, my bad. Doom means Fate. Not death.

>>174282373
>limited funding
>many people
>only research that shows results gets funding
>no incentive to lie
Really? That's an awful noble opinion of humanity you have.

>>174282549
But anon, it will taste exactly the same as regular milk, you just have to pledge your soul to the synthetic milk vat.

>>174282379

>Surely there exist problems in the universe that cannot be solved?
Only if you constrain them in such a way that they must be impossible.

>Logically speaking, there's no way to ever prove that anything is impossible. Do you think that means every proposition is automatically correct?
No, of course not! It simply means that we don't know if it's possible or impossible with our current knowledge.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (96KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1920x1080px

>>174282790

>>174282810
No, fuck you. You can have your fucking synthetic beer if you want, but touch my milk and it's fucking war. What the Qu did will be nothing compared to what I'll do to you. I will rain fire and brimstone all over your naked body until you'll beg for death, mark my fucking words.

>>174282460
Well i keep trying to make the point that everyone dies eventually but that seems to be in debate.

We don't have to breed nearly as much.

>>174282928
Literally no one has said we probably won't die. You just keep autistically misinterpreting "indefinite life extension may happen" as "we're all immortal and should live like we're never going to die"

Never tried the psionics (due to being a materialist atheist. Fuck religions)

How good are they? The ascendency menu is far from precise

How can I earn monthly influence? I've hit a wall where I'm only earning 1 a month.

>>174282928
No one has put it into debate.

The world isn't going to accept being told that only a small minority are allowed one child, once again, you would result in a massive war.

>only purge method allowed for authoritarians is deportation

I can understand xenophobes having neutering and death squads for balance purposes, but it puzzles me as to why even fanatic authoritarians aren't allowed to work pops to death

>>174283131
They're broken.

>>174283140
Rivalries, some techs give it and keeping factions happy.

>>174283140
Some research helps, then it depends on keeping your principal faction happy and upgrading what they can give you. Also rivalries can give a bunch, but invite wars so be ready

>make enemy my vassal
>get a useless piece of shit "fleet" following your doomstack around

>make enemy tributary
>get building mana
>have to spend purple mana forever or someone declares war on your tributary

Hot fucking shit I just want a conquered empire to stop spreading and pay me tribute without having to pay influence for an independence pact. These choices are literally ass.

>>174282790
>Jesus isn't going to save you, no matter how much you pray.
I'm an atheist, faggot.

>We don't know the max value of the dice we're rolling. We, in fact, cannot know that. Bad analogy.
We don't need to know the maximum value, or even what the probability of the outcomes are. Only that they do have a non-zero probability.

>What do you mean? How do you know anything is impossible?
"Jump from the ground to the moon, in a single leap, naked, with no assisting technology or unnatural construction, within the natural lifespan of a human, assuming the moon continues on in its standard orbit with no unforeseen cosmic interference."

Congrats, I've just created an impossible problem that is entirely possible to create right now, in real life. Not everything can be determined to be impossible or possible, but some things (like what I just said) can be explicitly said to be impossible.

>Not a jump, then. You could also say that the laws governing pendulums don't actually work because if you cut the string it behaves differently than a pendulum should.
Specifying "jump" is a constraint that makes the problem impossible.
Secondly, if you cut the string, it's no longer a pendulum.

>Oh, my bad. Doom means Fate. Not death.
If fate is certain than we are doomed to it entirely. No choice matters because we are determined by fate to make that choice. Our thought is not thought and this conversation right now was determined eons ago during the birth of the universe.
Congratulations, you just ruined the argument by invoking determinism.

>>174283259
In what way?

>>174283272
>>174283263
Would it be smart to start a rivalry with my pacifist xenophile neighbor?

>>174282650
>Because that's an acceptable alternative?
>We can either a) reduce our energy consumption to match energy production or b) increase our energy production to match energy consumption. Both have the same net effect of avoiding an energy crisis.
But we're not. We're at most deceptively wording plans to "Go 100% renewable by X" but when you look at the details they greatly limit what is actually going to be powered by renewables alone, because the economy would collapse if they forced it on industry.

>And regressing to a pre-industrial state has the exact same effect; we'd still have to reindustrialize, redevelop, recivilize, just like we already have, except this time with even LESS resources.
Yeah it's going to suck.

>hill
That hill was purely contrived in our own stories meant to make us feel better about the future, come on.

>And for a functionally infinite gain, those individuals decided it was a worthy pursuit of time. While they did fail, there was always the chance of success, that being that our current understanding of physics was wrong.
It was a tiny, infinitesimal probability, but still non-zero.
You rather enamored with minute chances for success, so do you think we should commit large amounts of funding to perpetual motion?

>>174282684
>being able to replace oil is one of the universes unsolvable problems
Probably.

>nothing can be proved incorrect so investment in alternative energy sources is the same as religion
Defending them as such is, yes.

This is why you died, mittenmeyer. You were always too trusting.

>>174282821
>Only if you constrain them in such a way that they must be impossible.
So as long as we exist in the universe?

>No, of course not! It simply means that we don't know if it's possible or impossible with our current knowledge.
So all statements are simultaneously accurate and inaccurate?

>>174283486
>mittermeyer
>dead
What the fuck are you on about, he was one of the only main characters to survive the entire show

>>174283408
>"Jump from the ground to the moon, in a single leap, naked, with no assisting technology or unnatural construction, within the natural lifespan of a human, assuming the moon continues on in its standard orbit with no unforeseen cosmic interference."
Not him but that's easily possible. The only impossibilities in this universe are arithmetic in nature. One plus one, for example.

File: 1459966313685.webm (1MB, 450x472px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x472px

>>174283486
>actually thinking increasing non-oil energy production is an unsolvable problem

File: 5293774+_f4f505378e07706f96f337a5cb824775.jpg (35KB, 311x352px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 311x352px

>tfw you turn on the Refugees Welcome policy

>>174283408
>I'm an atheist, faggot.
Not doing a good job of it.

>We don't need to know the maximum value, or even what the probability of the outcomes are. Only that they do have a non-zero probability.
Yeah i said it was a bad analogy.

>Congrats, I've just created an impossible problem that is entirely possible to create right now, in real life.
Yep. So did we when we connected oil to our jugular vein. We made a problem that was impossible to solve.

>Not everything can be determined to be impossible or possible, but some things (like what I just said) can be explicitly said to be impossible.
I don't see how you could prove that. Even if i said a solution to our problem wasn't allowed by physics, people would just say "then we need to invent new physics"

>Specifying "jump" is a constraint that makes the problem impossible.
Secondly, if you cut the string, it's no longer a pendulum.
Yep, and if you jumped from the earth to the moon the resulting explosion would annihilate you.

>If fate is certain than we are doomed to it entirely. No choice matters because we are determined by fate to make that choice. Our thought is not thought and this conversation right now was determined eons ago during the birth of the universe.
>Congratulations, you just ruined the argument by invoking determinism.
The statement "What must go up, must come down" is determinism? That's a new one.

>>174283724
>doing so while not wrecking the economy.
>while oil is depleting

That's the crux.

>>174282912
Unless you buy milk directly from a farm- you pretty much already drink synthetic milk. More or less.

people think that nuclear war is something inimaginable, look, nuclear bombs isnt this bad as you think guize, their radiation is gone very quickly.
the problem is nuclear energy, power plants unleash too much radiation if shit goes worng

>>174283486
>But we're not. We're at most deceptively wording plans to "Go 100% renewable by X" but when you look at the details they greatly limit what is actually going to be powered by renewables alone, because the economy would collapse if they forced it on industry.
I never mentioned renewable, I only mentioned energy. Green is for non-nuclear cucks anyways.

>Yeah it's going to suck.
Then we shouldn't do it; we should attempt to make what we have now, work, while avoiding your supposed assured nuclear war.

>That hill was purely contrived in our own stories meant to make us feel better about the future, come on.
That's kind of how analogies work, anon.

>You rather enamored with minute chances for success, so do you think we should commit large amounts of funding to perpetual motion?
No, not at all, because its chance of success (that being that all of modern physics is fundamentally wrong) is so incredibly minute that any significant expenditure in its pursuit would be just as counterproductive to human civilization at large.

More reasonable things like nuclear, fusion, life extension, etc and so forth are much better sinks for moonshot money at this point in time.

>So as long as we exist in the universe?
Another constraint; one hard to surmount, for sure, but a constraint.
Even still, due to our imperfect and incomplete knowledge of the universe and the laws governing it, it's much less of a hard constraint than you seem to think it is.

>So all statements are simultaneously accurate and inaccurate?
No; they cannot be determined to be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect, true or false, possible or impossible, until they are proven to be accurate, correct, true, or possible.

Inaccurate, incorrect, false, and impossible are useless terms in the context of unconstrained problems anways; similar but subtlety different terms would be not (yet) accurate, correct, true, or possible.

>>174284005
We're doing it now.

>>174283483

Those guys are x100 more likely to form a federation in the future and depending of their str fuck you in the ass

>>174283885
but there's a non-zero chance that what goes up must go further up indefinitely

File: yoda.jpg (18KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 408x408px

>>174282912
But anon, its tasty and good for you! Join us.

File: no comment.jpg (69KB, 638x746px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 638x746px

>>174284058

File: 1408329741765.png (162KB, 258x324px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 258x324px

How are you expected to get modified pops to a planet with a suitable biome if your people throw a fit over forced resettlement? What if I don't want to turn an entire planet of arctic pops into desert people? Why can't I just put one colonist down in a bubble and genetically engineer a love for sand into him?

File: 1436816523378.gif (94KB, 325x244px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 325x244px

>>174284045
Synthetic milk is an abomination and deserves to disappear from the face of the earth.

>>174284167
NEVER

>>174284059
>I never mentioned renewable, I only mentioned energy. Green is for non-nuclear cucks anyways.
Well when you've got the magic spell to reprocess spent fuel i'll agree with you.

>Then we shouldn't do it; we should attempt to make what we have now, work, while avoiding your supposed assured nuclear war.
Searching for that perfect solution is how we'll stumble into that nuclear war.

>That's kind of how analogies work, anon.
Which is why they're not good evidence.

>More reasonable things like nuclear, fusion, life extension, etc and so forth are much better sinks for moonshot money at this point in time.
Marginally, at best. Ultimately they will likely have the same results as pursuing perpetual motion; Too little, Too late.

>Another constraint; one hard to surmount, for sure, but a constraint.
Oh for heaven's sake.

>Even still, due to our imperfect and incomplete knowledge of the universe and the laws governing it, it's much less of a hard constraint than you seem to think it is.
Imperfect? Says who? Science fiction?

>No; they cannot be determined to be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect, true or false, possible or impossible, until they are proven to be accurate, correct, true, or possible.

No statement can be proven to be correct. They can only be proven to be very likely.

>>174284294
>if your people throw a fit over forced resettlement?
Well if you didn't go Fanatic Authoritarian you just brought it on yourself really

>>174284083
I wish we were, but we are just putting bandaids on and virtue signalling.

>>174284149
Not in our universe

.

File: cat2.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>174284391
But anon its the way that all milk goes as its perfect, and its pure!

You will join us.

>>174284502
No we're not. Push comes to shove we already have the technology to replace oil, it'll be a bit expensive but not "back to agrarian society" level.

>>174283641
>Not him but that's easily possible.
It is, but I was just trying to show something that's so ludicrously close to being impossible that it may as well be. The unforeseen cosmic interference constraint closes it off neatly, I'd say.

>>174283885
>Not doing a good job of it.
>being an atheist means I need to be a nihilistic luddite cuck
No

>Yeah i said it was a bad analogy.
It illustrates my point well enough; failure of success in the past does not prove assurance of failure in the future.

>Yep. So did we when we connected oil to our jugular vein. We made a problem that was impossible to solve.
A hard problem for sure, but not impossible.

>Yep, and if you jumped from the earth to the moon the resulting explosion would annihilate you.
How does that have ANYTHING to do with the fact that cutting the string of a pendulum makes it into a not-pendulum?

>The statement "What must go up, must come down" is determinism? That's a new one.
"What goes up must come down (given certain situations)" is a near-assured statement based on our current understanding of physics. The probability that it is wrong is undefined, and possibly infinitesimal, but not non-zero.

s

>>174284597
Show me the cost of replacing fossil fuels with renewable resources and the means to implement the plan. Show me the timetable.

You have a cloud in the sky that looks like an angel, and nothing more.

>scientist wants credit to observe something
>give him it
>nothing happens for a second
>Failure, opportunity passed
Every fuckin time

>>174283885
>Not doing a good job of it.
>He thinks all atheists are primitivist nihilists like him

>>174284718
That means it created a special project.

File: 008 (2).png (499KB, 418x752px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 418x752px

>>174284523
I'd rather charge at cops with nothing but a knife and my boxers than drink synthetic milk.

File: 1491242086294.jpg (46KB, 288x358px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 288x358px

>>174284712
>if you don't have a detailed plan and timetable in front of you right now you're wrong

>>174284394
>Well when you've got the magic spell to reprocess spent fuel i'll agree with you.
Who says nuclear will be the source of energy forever, as well? Besides, Thorium is always a possibility.

>Searching for that perfect solution is how we'll stumble into that nuclear war.
How we'll POSSIBLY* stumble into that nuclear war, but its better than willingly becoming per-industrial again.

>Which is why they're not good evidence.
It wasn't meant to be evidence, it was meant to be an analogy.

>Marginally, at best. Ultimately they will likely have the same results as pursuing perpetual motion; Too little, Too late.
Again, fatalist drivel. We can still pursue them easily for marginal cost compared to overall human resources for visible and increasing gains.

>Imperfect? Says who? Science fiction?
The fact that empirical knowledge is, by its very nature, imperfect knowledge.

>No statement can be proven to be correct. They can only be proven to be very likely.
Exactly! When something is done at least once, it is proven to be possible. Not assured, but possible. Until it has been shown to be possible, it is still possible, but it is unknown as to how it is possible.

>>174284712
Here you go anon, the technology exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
>b-but you've not got an essay on it
Thats because I'm not an energy minister.

>>174284629
You do know that using nihilist makes you look as stupid as if you used the word sheep, right? Nothing i have said shows that i lack a value system.

>It illustrates my point well enough; failure of success in the past does not prove assurance of failure in the future.
Yeah but it's just an analogy. You can analogize anything.

>A hard problem for sure, but not impossible.
Yep, just like jumping to the moon. I saw an anime where someone did it so it must be possible.

>How does that have ANYTHING to do with the fact that cutting the string of a pendulum makes it into a not-pendulum?
you have to assume impossible circumstances.

>"What goes up must come down (given certain situations)" is a near-assured statement based on our current understanding of physics. The probability that it is wrong is undefined, and possibly infinitesimal, but not non-zero.

If i am able to make an accurate prediction of the universe based on empirical observation of an experiment, it does not in any way mean the universe is deterministic.

It just means that the future can be predicted with enough knowledge.

>>174284416
So they don't have any system in place at all for engineering appropriate colony missions?

>>174285074
Not him but the only one looking stupid is you.

>/civ4xg/- sophomoric fatalism, the future of civilization, spiders, and synthetic milk

How much fleet power to deal with the Enigmatic Fortress?

File: vengeance now.png (754KB, 909x573px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 909x573px

>>174284930
If you kill me my brothers in service of synthetic meat will kidnap you and force you to live off synthetic milk for the rest of your glorious synthetic milk enhanced life.

File: vidyadibson.jpg (388KB, 800x592px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 800x592px

Hey two fags arguing about energy
please kill yourselves, this thread is for video games
don't come here for /pol/ shitposting just because you're too weak to handle the bantz there
thanks
/civ4xg/

>>174285158
40-50k is a sure bet for pretty much any guardian

>>174285098
just terraform the planet brah

File: 002_1491471383.jpg (20KB, 211x109px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 211x109px

>>174285128
Nice job.

>>174285235
I'll kill all of you.

>>174285264
Wait, what does energy have to do with politics?

>>174285301
But that takes forever.

>>174285308
Something something climate change something something war on coal

>>174285308
Climate change and energy is something fairly /pol/-y but no ones discussing that so I have no clue what he's on about.

>>174285264
It's at least 3 or 4 fags, holmes.

t. one of the fags

File: 206px-Ralphexploitable2.png (37KB, 206x188px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 206x188px

>>174285412
sorry, philofags also need to GTF to your containment board, /his/
That better?

>>174285442
Its one fag arguing with a decent amount of other fags.

File: Remember,Service Guarantees Citizenship.jpg (30KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x281px

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

>>174285043
Nuclear isn't renewable though. It'll last us for a few thousand years at most until we start to run out of Uranium; by then we'll hopefully space-based solar or some other renewable source set up.

Also just increasing efficiency would help quite a bit too. World population will top out around 12 or so billion, so once that happens any reduction in power use is pretty much the same as an increase in production.

>>174285561
Yes thank you for agreeing with me.

>>174285540
I would like to know more please

File: tfwtoosmart.png (279KB, 898x790px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 898x790px

dropping a broken build for yall niggers:
traits:
Talented, Quick Learners, Enduring, Sedentary.
ethics:
Egalitarian, Fanatic Pacifist.
authority:
Democratic.
civics:
Meritocracy, Agrarian Idyll, later get Beacon of Liberty.

limitless supply of 3 star leaders gives great boosts across the board, most notably 6% research bonus. they also get up to 5 stars faster and stay alive longer, so skill 5 anomalies are never gonna be a problem. agrarian idyll + 40% extra unity from fanatic pacifist lets you get an ascension perk before the first year is over (and you can reform late game when unity is worthless).

it's very flexible and not spec'd towards any one playstyle, yet has bonuses to everything both because of turbo-leaders and because of early traditions. of course fanatic pacifist is pretty limiting so you can downgrade to pacifist and use the other point where ever you want while still having agrarian idyll.

after 1 playthrough with this it's really hard to go back to 1 star leaders and only 2 unity per month at game start instead of 8.

>>174285602
You implied nuclear is renewable though, which is isn't. It's a medium-term solution until we get renewables up and running permanently.

Not saying you're necessarily disputing that but I thought I'd point out the clarification.

>>174285616
you need to use brainjack as your portrait for that species

>>174285708
Oh, I was initially talking about a stopgap while we continue researching. But no, its not really renewable. Theres probably enough of it in space to make it a moot point though and there certainly enough of it on earth to keep us going till we can get something else up and running.

>>174285561
>uranium is the only way to nuclear
there are other elements much more common than uranium mein fag

>>174285304
beetles are real strong tho

they're good

File: 1491788444361.jpg (37KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x480px

Are we talking about Stellaris yet?

>>174285304
>I'll kill all of you.
try it nerd

>>174285832
None of them are renewable though, and none of them are mature technologies. I agree that Thorium, fusion etc. are promising but the main reason why nuclear is such an excellent option right now (and hence why we're discussing it as a viable solution to climate change/peak oil) is because it's a mature technology. There's no need to rely on ifs and maybes with it because we already know it works and how to do it effectively, right this second.

File: hmmmm.jpg (29KB, 1919x56px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1919x56px

r8 me

>>174286061
Fusion is renewable isn't it? Or at least as potentially long lasting as any actual "renewable"

>>174285967
shit game tbqhfamalam

>>174286083
>3347
autism/10

What's your CPU? Mine is meh-tier and it chugs along excruciatingly slowly even mid-game, I can't imagine going all the way to the 3300's.

File: 1492269745660.jpg (487KB, 862x2428px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 862x2428px

fucking brainlets

>>174286083
>- influence
>only 2 core planets
>autism year
3/10

>>174285880
Even in Dungeon Keeper, beetles are trash.

>>174286005
Okay, that's it. I'm declaring an extermination war on the Synthetic Milk Drinkers Syndicate.

In the last thread some anon posted a "strat" that involved getting raped by FE with the intention of killing their transport ships and then researching tier 5 shields , jump drive and neutron armor by ten 10

how would this work in a fanatical purifier play through ? if it works I assume it would be strong as fuck , yay or nay ?

>>174286061
true, but they will last more than only a thousand years, assuming the elements only on earth, there are more in other planets, if we achieve fusion it will be godly because hidrogen is the most commom element on universe.

>>174286083
Why only two planets?

What's the strategy to win as a Pacifist? Can you even conquer other worlds or are you pretty much forced into using a Federation?

>>174286376
You can be quite aggresive, just use liberate instead of cede planet, then amalgamate all your little third world planet buddies over time.

File: hm.jpg (178KB, 1919x931px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1919x931px

>>174286191
i7-4771

Small galaxies are fine, mediums are ok with barely any slowdown in the late game only when you kill everyone and disband your own fleet, before that it's comic book tier.

>>174286235
>>174286305
It's only 1 planet. Everyone else is 1 big ass sector. Why? Because I don't need to manage anything at this point.

>>174286376
liberation wars > vassalise liberated cunts > absorb vassalised liberated cunts. lets you control bordergore more reliably than conquest wars too since then you're limited to planets you can actually settle.

>>174286376

Depends on the degree of pacifism

no-fac : you can force enemy to liberate planets as independent states , then protectorate/vassal them and integrate

fac : can't even declare wars and war goals are restricted to "reclaiming" planets that house pops of your species , i dont know if you can start migration treaties and then "reclaim " the planets that your pops emigrated to

>>174286083
unclickable/10

File: hmm.jpg (196KB, 1706x959px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1706x959px

>>174286235
>>174286305
>autism

I have a defence station in every system and about 40 megastructures, altho I stole like 7 spheres from the AI empires.

>>174286172
nah, you will end up with iron eventually.

>>174286783
But the timespan needed to use up all accessible fusion materials will be so long you might as well say solar or wind aren't renewable because of the heat death.

File: 1490134022305.jpg (71KB, 578x589px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 578x589px

>War has been declared against us
>White peace
>War has been declared against us
>White peace
>War has been declared against us
>White peace
>War has been declared against us
>Lose some planets
>War has been declared against us
>White peace
>War has been declared against us
>White peace
>War has been declared against us
>White peace
>War has been declared against us

Do I need to colonize new planets for my pops of a faction I am supporting to grow or will they just reduce the pops from another faction?

Megastructures should produce influence, blocking out a star seems pretty influencing.

File: 1492197798001.jpg (90KB, 508x508px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 508x508px

>>174287172
why dont you add in some war goals then take their shit

>>174282549
I know they grey a synthetic steak in a lab, just grew the protiens in a petri dish. Looked horrible and grey but apparantly was indistinguishable from real steak in taste and texture, and we already artificially color shit like salmon so all you'd need is some steak-coloring and no more beef farming required.

Provided it could be scaled up to mass market.

>>174287172
you're supposed to pick some war goal when the ayys declare war on you

>>174287512
Yeah, I watched Better Off Ted too.
It tasted like despair.

>>174284878
Just realized it's a 50/50 chance whether or not it creates the project or instantly fails.

File: NC.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>174285616
will try it after my taiidan game

File: doubles.png (89KB, 527x352px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 527x352px

Jesus Christ

>>174287403
>>174287535
Which would imply I'm not completely on the defensive against an overwhelming enemy and his vassals.
If I was able to rack up enough war-score to negotiating anything other than a white peace I would.

>>174287771
git gud

File: Cute spider playing dead.png (292KB, 470x374px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 470x374px

>>174287756

>>174287756
wtf explain this shit

>>174287914
Not much I can do against an AI that can shit out >500k fleet power that emergency FTLs out whenever I try to jump his smaller fleets.

>>174287756
>That one cast looking curiously at the spider display

>>174286083
>people are still meming on sectors

>>174287701
>fanatic pacifist
gonna get boring real quick unless you shift away from that. nothing's worse than having a doomstack that could crush everyone and getting cucked out of it by your ethos

>>174287756
What seems to be the problem, citizen?

>>174288539
sectors are 10/10 now

>>174286305
when you get big enough the shitty AI of sectors doesn't even matter

You now realize only 4 of the possible 12 sections of a ring world are habitable

Is the End of the Cycle hard to beat?

>>174288841
You'll never see him because Shroud RNG is retarded.

I bought Stellaris during the recent sale. Any advice for getting a fleet up and combat-ready by the time you discover most of the other races sharing the galaxy? Seems other races are always able to pump out huge fleets that are double my number.

File: 12.jpg (454KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1680x1050px

I don't get it. I have high intel for every planet in the galaxy. I can see every ship from the beginning. How do I fix this?

>>174287756
We got a new causus belli against /indie/ (Mascot stolen)

File: 52xKftq.jpg (192KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1360x768px

>>174287756
yep we got spiderfags
time to fanatically purify em

this game is wrong
earth is flat

>>174289057
ewww that image is ugly af

>>174288997

Try the industrious trait and the two civics that boost minerals ( one for empire other for slaves)

File: 20170418015303_1.jpg (305KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1920x1080px

>tfw baiting enemy's fleet with transport ships then dropping on them with your main fleet

outplayed you mushroom fucking shits

>>174289242
>mushroom fucking shits

audible kek

File: 20170418015536_1.jpg (256KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1920x1080px

>>174289242
speaking of mushroom fucking shits, anyone know what ship type they're using?

NSC ver 5 has been uploaded for filthy pirates !

>>174288941
But if it spawns, how do you beat it?

>>174289406

new star soccer?

I have played over 50 Stellaris games and I have never seen the AI rebellion.

>>174289621
for me it's the scourge that i never see

how did you manage that?

Give me two good Reasons why I shouldn't just use a No sectors mod

Stellaris fags not the get out and reee to their own thread desu

>>174289513

New ship classes & more , the more includes playable leviathans and build able planets

>>174289701
Dunno, it's not intentional. I get Unbidden 3/4 of the time and Prethoryn fucking shits 1/4 of the time.

>>174289621

You can force it to happen by building tons of synths and treating them like shit

>>174289727
is that a mod?

>>174289621
You're lucky. I had the AI rebellion happen, get shit stomped by the neighboring empire and then bug out and hole up in their little planet for the rest of time. Why are the crises so fucking broken now

>>174289854
I thought it can be triggered by other empires as well? What are the chances it never happened in 50 games.

File: 1492294830302.jpg (145KB, 474x766px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 474x766px

>>174289727

>have strong population
>cant turn very strong cause is oposite of strong
>cant remove strong trait cause is beneficial
nice paradox

File: 1486611841729.jpg (39KB, 510x346px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 510x346px

>>174279109
How long is Indoctrination via Observation Station supposed to take?

I've been indoctrinating a couple pre-FTL folks for decades and I've yet to convert them to my Materialist/Egalitarian ways

>>174290027
>I thought it can be triggered by other empires as well?
It can, the only time I ever saw it was when I was playing a Spiritualist no bots run. It just seems like the AI durdles around and never fulfills the conditions before any of the other crises'.

>>174289934

Yep , a very popular one according to steam and pirate pages

the guy even has a site and live discord for tech issues and suggestions

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=683230077

http://www.nscmod.com/

File: 5703437189_7765ae04f6_b.jpg (536KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 683x1024px

>>174290071
"You're welcome." - Paradox.

>>174290071
You can remove positive traits by going the biological ascension route

>Spend 30 minutes save-scummng the shroud
>End of Cycles never pops up.

>>174290147
>not sure if want.jpg

I tend to abhor mods. Seems too fanmade-y compared to "official" games. Haven't played with mods on any game ever.

>>174290027
Breddy gud unless you mod the game so all the crises can happen in one game. Prethoryn can show up regardless of what anyone does, Unbidden just need one fleet to go full Gellar Field failure but the AI has a whole event chain to work through.

>>174290298
At the very least, grab the Auto Upgrade mod. Saves you a ton of clicks and lets you automate space station construction. Honestly the game is far too tedious without it.

>>174290416
sectors upgrade stations automatically

>>174290147
I remember playing this mod back when it first came around and I didn't like it at all because none of the AI would ever build the ship classes, so my fleet was super massive compared to every other AI. Has he made it so AI build the special ship classes as well?

>>174290551
I meant mining/research stations. Sectors will build them, but it's a lot easier when you can just build 5 construction ships yourself and tell them to get to work. Early game you obviously want to manually prioritize minerals and high value research, but when you're blobbing hard late game you just want that shit built.

>Jump into a system with my fleet and transport ships
>My fleet goes for a mining station instead of the fucking fleet in the system I'm attacking
>I lose my Transport ships

PARADOX. PLEASE. LET ME FUCKING TARGET SOMETHING MID-COMBAT.

>>174290557

The AI builds both types of carriers and the frigate ( small ship dedicated to PD)

they also build the more expensive ships but only the stronger empires reach the point of being able to spam them ( more expensive than a battleship )

not so long ago they would build ships but never use PD ( auto build didn't equip it ) but that was fixed , like i said they bug fix very rapidly and the number of people giving feedback make it very polished

I really like using light carriers vs spaceports and carriers vs the prethoryn ( penetrate that armor doe )

I am leaving stellaris, sins of a solar empire of distant worlds?
>>174290839
yep combat is trash, cant choose what choot, basically no tactics, aside from the fact that defensive doesnt exist, commom, one station has 7k power while a fleet has 40k? stations should be powerful

File: new capital perhaps.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

well i finally decided to take out the FE to the north of me

how long does displacement take to purge?

File: Capture.jpg (53KB, 1068x656px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1068x656px

>>174290953
>aside from the fact that defensive doesnt exist, commom, one station has 7k power while a fleet has 40k? stations should be powerful

what did he mean by this?

Are spinal weapons like the Arc Emitter any good?

>>174290953
>I am leaving stellaris, sins of a solar empire of distant worlds?
Sins is fun, but doesn't really scratch the 4x itch for me personally. It's more of a slow paced RTS. Can't speak for Distant Worlds.

>>174291574
are you any good?

>>174291683

Better than you m8

>>174291574

X Kinetic are good vs FE and Unbidden
X Lazer vs Prethoryn swarm and FE once unshielded

but don't rely 100% on them due to their inaccuracy , I don't know about the arc emitter mate that min-max variance in damage is fucking huge but i imagine that with plenty of them it should be middle ground

>>174291816
arc emitters are also good

>>174285616
>not going f.pacifist +xenophobe for inwards perfection as your third civic

Shroud RNG is fucking retarded
I made a game with the sole purpose of trying to summon the end of cycles.
Year 2500+ and no sign of it.

>be f-militarist authoritarian
>south: f-xenophiles
>north: f-xenophiles
>west: f-pacifists
>east: xenophile pacifist spiritualist

this is gonna be a bit too easy isnt it lads

>>174291574
Battleships are a meme

File: 1490469960671.jpg (79KB, 694x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 694x960px

>>174290120
Pls respond

>>174292220
>falling for the "ethics are a mechanic worth thinking about outside of species creation" meme

>>174292273
It's mostly for RPing my man

>falling for the game meme

File: Fucking done.png (956KB, 841x849px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 841x849px

I know it has become a meme but honestly the handling of genocide in this game is asinine. I use cleanse planet on a 1 pop new colony that my arch-rival colonized one pixel away from my border, and now allies for over a hundred years are throwing it all away overnight even though they also hate these assholes, and it takes 100+ years to clear the fucking genocide negative from relationships. If I had known it was a flat penalty and not based on how many pops you genocide, I would have just terror bombed the colony into oblivion for far less penalty, or demanded the planet and then just displaced the pops to clear it. You pissed off people less by blowing up entire worlds in Master of Orion.

Time to cleanse all these motherfuckers, cause it's not like anything is stopping me anymore.

>falling for the life meme

Is there ever any reason to vassalize over making a tributary of someone?

>>174292420
>suddenly I'M the bad guy!

>>174292473
additional ships in war you cuck

Venerable is OP as fuck

>>174292582

Yeah but I would rather have the 25% minerals they give me and use those to make ships I can actually design and control.

>>174282365
maybe they cant reproduce anymore

>>174290953
>stations should be powerful
A station is nothing but a spaceship with no engines. Why should it be any more powerful?

>>174293104

Because that's the point, you dense fuck. There's a reason people of old built castles and shit everywhere they went.

What would you say's the most appropriate ethics for a nationalist socialist empire in stellaris?

>>174282365
They're "Fallen" because they used to be far larger than they were.
Now they've retreated to small territories, don't understand a lot of their own technology anymore and are a stagnant society.
They big deathstacks you mention are just what's left of their original massive fleets.
If they become Awakened Empires they'll kick their factories into gear again and start building more ships.

>>174292535
It's not stupid that they're mad or nervous, it's the proportionality. If I had sat there and bombed the one pop into non-existance I would have gotten a -5 terror bombing penalty, variable depending on ethics. Because I instead used Cleanse Planet, that one pop is treated as if I'd bombed over 100 pops.

Basically I'm not mad that people looking at me funny for having knocked down my neighbor's tool shed because it was over the property line. I'm mad because it turns out people would have been less mad if I blew it up with dynamite.

File: 1485459631856.jpg (29KB, 357x312px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 357x312px

So someone posted this guide yesterday on Ship Design

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/61nolh/ship_equipment_load_out_for_141_15/

There's something I don't understand - he says his Cruisers are for PD and going headfirst in battles. But his proposed ship design for Cruisers includes no PD.

Is this a fuck up on his part or am I missing something?

>>174293315
1 pop represents about a billion people.

File: 20170418025537_1.jpg (285KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1920x1080px

cloud lightning emitters are pretty

>>174293264
Authoritarian, militaristic, xenophobe.

Am I the only one thinking Sectors need a revamp?
There should several degrees of centralization, and there would be several possible ranging from a tall heartland to an empire with many vassals and the HRE.
Sectors would slowly diverge ideologically from the core but there would be ways to make it works anyway or preventing this.

File: 20170417185653_1.jpg (353KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1920x1080px

Is this it? Is this all you can conjure, Unbidden?

>>174293357

He probably meant PD as in flak artillery that uses M slots and therefore can be equipped on cruisers

>>174293225
What? No, if we could've strapped huge wheels to a castle and driven it around, we bloody well would have.
You made no point.

>>174293437
Yes, but if I bombed 10 billion people to death, people would be less mad than using the Cleanse Planet mechanic on 1 billion people.

>>174293357
Flak artillery serves as PD but can be used for M slots

>>174293104
Because it doesn't use energy, space and materials on an engine. Also because videogame.

>2205
>find Sol
>"oh, okay, I'll go build a frontier station and observation post when I get the influence!
>2210
>check on Sol
>tombworld
;_;7

>>174293315
Think about it like this.

What would be more disturbing, drone striking a planet into oblivion or rounding everyone up into camps and shoving them into gas chambers?

Is there a particular way i can set up an AI empire so they're likely to cause the machine consciousness crisis?
I'm sick of getting the unbidden every damn time.

>>174293104
So they defend themselves against random shit

>>174293104
problem is free ship movement and that you can build stations near each other

>>174293901
Start them with robots but don't make them materialist.

>>174293104
because ships are fucking massive, much much more than any battle ship, aside from it by their size they should have a fuckload of ships and guns, they are almost a fleet on their own, but they also would have to be fucking expensive.

>>174294207
They need to be materialist to start with robots.

Is civ 5 with all the dlc worth $50?

File: dyson hoover.jpg (116KB, 815x712px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 815x712px

Is it just me or do dyson spheres look nicer than the actual stars themselves?

All those gaps certainly does mean it's not as 100% efficient as it claims to be, though.

>>174293315

>America nuked Japs
>nobody cares
>Germany purged Jews
>der juden used this event to get their own country and they still cry about it 70 years later
Sounds realistic

>>174293857
I would think the first, especially if it's on a far larger scale. It's one thing to smite the shit out of one border town and say don't cross the line again, it's another if you're doing it to every city including major population centers which shows you're going to kill them to the last man, woman, and child. Actually if anything Cleanse Planet feels a bit weird, what are you doing to instantly clear the planet that you can't do if you conquer the planet? Normally it takes you 5 years to round up and shoot everyone but Cleanse Planet is instant, so I always assumed you just glassed the planet with a bombardment.

Honestly now that displacement is a thing, if anything Displace Planet needs to be a war goal option instead of just Cleanse Planet. I don't care if they're still alive, I just want them off my space lawn. I suppose in the future I'll need to just claim enemy planets and manually displace them to make them fuck off.

>>174294636

You can skip gods and kings since all it does is let you play as the civs it includes. Brave New World makes the game real good though, that's the only mandatory one imo.

>>174294510
sheeeeeeeeeeeed

File: 1475890394984.jpg (96KB, 502x417px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 502x417px

imagine stellaris, with the depth of distant worlds, and the combat of homeworld

>>174294738
O sorry! I meant civ 6. Brave new world was an amazing addition to 5 though.

>>174294971

Oh, I have no idea then. Played it for 8 hours at release and haven't touched it since. Would like to know myself desu

>>174289452
Focused arc emitters and neutron torpedoes. Bypass the ridiculous shields.

>inb4 Reckoning's shield regen isn't working.

>>174294669
It isn't:
>Al-Quaeda knocks down three buildings
>All the fucking western armies bomb the shit out of them to oblivion
>Turkey purges the Armenians
>Nobody cares
Real Life: The Game has different relation penalties depending on what groups you bomb or purge. Meanwhile, in Stellaris everybody is jews if they are purged while at the same time they are palestine kids in wheelchairs if they are bombed.

>see a little tiny ship do a warp jump through the shroud
>get the genius idea to jump a whole armada of 300 fucking warships through the shroud
What's the worst that could happen.

>>174291257
About a year, but FE pops commit sudoku and die instantly if you conquer them after they've awakened.

>>174293547
And really good at removing corvettes.

>>174295373
>but FE pops commit sudoku and die instantly if you conquer them after they've awakened.
Are you playing as a hivemind?

>>174294646
it's for aesthetics, autismo

>>174294658
moar!

>>174293847
We'll be lucky if we make it to the end of the century at the rate we're going. We had so many near-misses during the last Cold War.

File: deathmatch.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

So the prethoryn never came, now i'm going to try that OP build. to compensate for its strength, here are my settings; it's my first insane game so here's to that.

>>174295373
>>174295505
no i beat them as the gay stock human faction and they simply vanished.

Reminder that defense platforms aren't for killing the enemy, they're for aggroing the AI into committing to a battle against an opponent they can kill only to pop in your fleet to wipe them out

>>174295681
what about the lag?

How do I build my ships to go up against an awakened FE?

>>174294873
I'd like decent ground combat too. I want to see my troops setting fire to pre-sentients or intervening in WW2 on Sol III and disintegrating everyone.

File: into the dark.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>174295681
wish me luck lads, cya in 10 20 years.

>>174295505
Nah, if you select the total victory or whatever under the war conditions, their pops just vanish after they surrender. I was a regular fanatic militarist/authoritarian species.

>>174295775
my last game had similar settings, not much different from a medium sized map. i have problems with huge.

Is living metal worth it ever?

>>174295664
>le atomic war will destroy humanit
jesus christ, a nuclear bomb is as bad as you think fucking faggot.
radiation goes out less than 6 month, if dont pick too much you are okay, even quimic bombs are more dangerous, the ones used in first war rendered soil dangerous till today in france.

>>174295814
They've announced they are completely overhauling planetary invasions.

>>174293678
Its a paradox game, it is Guaranteed that eventually they will release a DLC that overhauls/Revamps Sectors
along with a fucktons of other stuff eventually getting their own DLC that expands shit
personally I hope we get DLC in the following order
>sector focused DLC
>combat/aggression DLC (think stuff like superweapon mega-structures and the ability to blow up planets and shit like that)
>and Aesthetic DLC like more species or ship appearances and stuff like that

File: 1480963155796.jpg (646KB, 2110x1350px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 2110x1350px

>>174295803
Anything that cuts through shields and lots of point defence to death with their fighter/bomber spam.

Their ships will pretty much always outclass yours, so it's more about going Soviet on them and making sure your logistics and manufacturing are all set up to pour an endless stream of ships onto them until they run out of ships and defence stations.

Quantity has a quality all it's own.

>Imagine stellaris with Sins of a Solar Empire's combat model where you can be an actual fleet commander and your skills determine the outcome of the fight not garbage AI RNG