Sounds great but i still can't handle endgame since they removed the tile pops system. The band-aid they applied makes midgame playable but I'm getting tired of playing on small galaxies just to be able to make it to the crisis

How do I get to the DLCs through your affiliate link? That link only has the base game.

I hate to say it, but even with those savings that's still $116 CAD. I don't think any game should charge that much. Guess its back to just watching for me (or family sharing from a friend's account on steam). Thanks for getting a sale for people though. @Hot Take - You just have to scroll down for "associated content" and they're all there.

@@Davion197 Doing so removes the affiliate tag

Thanks. Bought $60 worth of DLC through this link. Their DLC menu is funny and difficult to navigate through that, but I hope you got the partner cut. (Do more PvE centred fleet tutorial vids.)

It was also always strange that the fanatic materialist fallen empire was not synthetic, when that was the intended.

Exactly I just want to play adeptus mechanicus not necrons

@@bigbenhgy Well, fanatic materialists can also go with genetic ascension. Modifying their species until they literally have all the good traits

@@adrianoarne-ritz249 they can also go with psionic ascension, they just have a hard time rolling psionic theory.

Agreed. If I was even retarded enough to go synthetic ascension, I'd just choose to start as a robot race anyway.

What's broken about it? Noob asking

@@julessaviour5931 is bugged, auto replenishing and upgrading is trouble.

@@julessaviour5931 I'm assuming they are referring to the travel time for reinforcements. For me the fleet manager rarely has issues, bit I have noticed sometimes when I use it the ships have an almost 8 year or more arrival time. It gets so bad sometimes that my fleet has enough time to go home, upgrade, and go back to the front lines before the reinforcements arrive.

it's easier to separate out ship types for travel and refurbishment and combine them when nearing front lines

@@RDehuvyne exactly

yeah it Would be cool if they tied to ship sections bonuses to ships... also it would be great if they murder point defense slot and use small weapon slots for point defense...

Yeah, a new ship type sounds like a bad idea. Just playing around with the ship sections like you said is much smarter. I’m also not sold on the concept of torpedo corvettes having low speed and low evasion, since they’re basically based on torpedo boats, which had high speed and evasion in real life and was their main defense versus larger naval vessels.

Adding those modifiers to the torpedo hull would make more sense.

I think you guys are just set in your ways and don't like change...

Frigates and Gunships would be cool.

I want the ascension path to give you a technology tree to go down. Not another ascension tree.

@@RunFromCities that could be interesting too, I kinda err on the side of a tradition tree because I more quickly run out of "must-haves" on that then on the tech tree, but both are improvements and more interesting than the current two perks system.

I'm hoping this unlocks mix and match. I miss choosing genetic ascension, then use migration treaties to spread my pops so they pick up cybernetics and psionics, only to the replicate all three ascensions onto my species. Sigh. The good old broken and unbalanced days. But it would be nice if you could choose to master one and dip into the others. Only get cybernetics and forgoe synthetics as well as get psionic without the ability to pierce the Shroud.

@@UnusualDeathCause I like the random “bullshit”. Getting technologies more at random seems more realistic and immersive than the more artificial tech trees where you just get to cherry-pick everything. Plus, it could be worse. Masters of Orion had a “proper” tech tree, but you could only pick one of multiple uses (usually three) of a technology once you researched it, unless you played as the Psilons, and could only get the others through technology trading or stealing (with you only being able to reliably get them if the Psilons were in play, as the other empires might not research the alternates). Edit: the Psilons were literally really weak, so they were bad at fighting, and very limited to where they could settle.

@@UnusualDeathCause idk I’ve always been fine with tech being random Besides it would take much longer to find what you are looking for with so many paths in the tech tree

I still can't fathom why this was removed anyway I liked that the fighters were your more "defensive" strike crafts used to protect yourself against the enemy' and missile and could also somewhat deal with the small corvettes as well if needed whereas the bombers were supposed to be the heavy hitters made to snipe the enemy ships. Sure they sucked back then due to the mechanics of Strike craft, but nowadays where Strike crafts are viable I think they should give back the option

@@sephikong8323 I think they wanted to simplify the AI behavior for strike craft, since that had been a big issue for the longest time.

I miss the days of fighters and bombers in the early days of Stellaris, not gonna lie.

Endless space 2 moment

It'd be cool if having a carrier in orbit of a ground invasion would have a positive bonus, like "air superiority". Not necessary, but still a cool idea

Overmarine (in opposite to a submarine) lol

@@Pedro_Colicigno hahaha, just a stone throw away from a spacemarine :D

I feel like they should just implement a frigate class (the pirates have frigates technically), can't figure out myself the function, but I don't want it to just be called Torpedo Corvette lol

@@Pedro_Colicigno extramarine.

@@Necromediancer In real life, Frigates aren't attack ships. They're for recon.

Can’t have synthetic ascension with Hive Mind.

I hope they add a secound ascension for machine ascension. Maybe some turn your system into synthetic machines, imagine harnessing all the energy,minerals, etc of every planet and star.

This version still feels like a budget ascension for ME's instead of a proper one. - Can assimilate all robots/machines -> should be a QoL-change and not an ascension perk - +1 trait vs completely ignoring habitability + synthetic trait -> not even close in power - Synthetic trait and +1 replicator vs +1 trait and +1 roboticist -> roboticist is double the efficiency of a replicator I would say they tried to nerf synthetic ascension and didn't care that ME's would be caught in that as well.

@@Lukashoffmann94 I'm not thinking meta-gameplay-wise. I am thinking that a machine intelligence which can basically break into the shroud and become the crisis of the galaxy can have the technology for improving themselves just like the organics. That's why I said, Synth Ascension for the Machine Intelligence should have been a default option. If I could rework the Synth Ascension, I would use 2 different types, organic>synth would have been different than machine>synth ascensions. For example, organics > synth could have different results, like becoming a planetary supercomputer, living in a Matryoshka brain or in a utopian holodeck and so on. Machine > Synth could mean, that each drone will become a single ship, just like the reapers from Mass Effect.

@@cmdrtianyilin8107 Would be nice. I just don't see it happening with how much they are neglecting ME's.

Well, the "torpedo boat" as described is a corvette which moves slower and has lower evasion. So... a destroyer. but more fragile. But it murders capital ships with torpedos. BUT destroyers can equip neutron launchers and other weapons which also murder capital ships, while also providing screens if necessary. So... I'm not sure it actually does have a role, at first blush. If anything I would have expected to see "carriers" broken off into their own ship class.

You used to be able to design your construction ships, science ships, and transport ships way back when

I could also have imagined a stand-alone carrier hull, with fighters being more diverse instead of merely tiers. I'm curious to see how the torpedo corvette will fit in. Feels like a mid-late game alternative to handle battleship stacks.

@@poilboiler from what I can discern they’re experimenting in making a specific mechanical distinction between “normal” corvettes and “specifically torpedo” corvettes (which, from Montus PowerPoint overview, may also be able to equip a neutron launcher or kinetic battery or whatever in place of a torpedo.)

LOL they made it "much slower" and worse evasion because that's what you really want in a weak ship that needs to fire at very close range.

The formics are a psionic hivemind, so it has a precedent in scifi. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of it too, that's just the one I know.

I think the reason they can't is because psionic is basically like a proto-hivemind, you could say a hivemind achieved a psionic connection long, long ago.

@@POKENAR Which is still incredibly stupid

The real reason they can't is it that it would crash the game. They tried to do it but its apparently a technical impossibility

@@MontuPlays There's multiple mods that easily add psionic ascension for hiveminds just fine

sameeeee 😆

RIP

Don’t worry the ground combat rework will happen eventually…… hopefully.

One day, one day

Devs either too lazy, or lack the creative foresight

I feel you... even though I enjoy planetary management, over time it does make me insane...

hey thomas, i feel like automated planetary management is already fine, like not fully optimised but OK tier when you have the lead and too many wars at a time... actually i think it's great to have a difference between somebody who's getting into planetary optimization, and somebody who has automated everything

@@lucasboyrie6031 is it? Haven't trusted it yet. So i could colonize a planet and letting the AI do what it does and it won't ruin me? In my last run i ended up with about 120 planets and habitats, would be nice to have it on a functional auto mode, especially after mid-game crisis, when you're just to busy for that micromanagement.

I think you may have missed the point in the 4X genre with these suggestions...

@@ShneekeyTheLost Nah, mate. Grand strategy is for macro management. The level of attention you have to pay to your planets to be running smoothly is excessively deep in micropmanagement. Especially once you get into later stages of the midgame, you are way too busy shuffling pops around and retooling conquered planets

So... basically allow an evasion of more than 90% (which Corvettes can achieve if ships weren't hardcapped at 90% evasion), but in the hit chance = accuracy - (evasion -tracking) formula, the evasion minus tracking part is capped at 90%? Which means that low tracking weapons (for example Neutron Launchers with 90% accuracy and 0% tracking, can with max sensors +15% and auxiliary fire controls or similar things get up to 100% accuracy and 15% tracking (At least that's how I think it works), which results in 25% hit chance) will now actually get their accuracy reduced by 90% or almost 90%, ending up with only 10% or slightly more hit chance instead of the 25% they can currently achieve.

No. The cheap throw away ships you field in massive numbers need to be exactly that, cheap throw away ships you field in massive numbers. Extreme survivability would only break them back into absurd levels of OP, again.

@@ekscalybur exactly, I literally run a corvette fleet that only exists to keep my battleships from taking damage, and I'd still be running it even if they had 0% evasion, the real issue though is that there's too much tracking in general

@@Corundrom Weapons should get a bonus tracking multiplier, X weaponry getting as much flat bonuses as smaller ones makes those even more advantageous than they would already be on paper.

They have a use, late game you really want corevttes going toe to toe with titans?

Considering that's what Destroyers were built to do in irl Naval history, I definitely think that would be a good idea.

In real life WW2 combat (which stellaris heavily based it’s on) Battleships and carriers were the flag center of the fleet, with destroyers to counter other battleships and cruisers and corvettes to counter other destroyers.

@@trivipesnipe Destroyers were built to counter battleships, cruisers and corvettes were made to counter destroyers. Aircraft carriers were made to counter all of them pretty well but they still need backup

@@damonedrington3453 Not true. Destroyers is a shorthand that originates from "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" back in the early 1900s where small watercraft and patrol boats were hard to counter for larger vessels.

the name may have come from torpedo boat destroyer, but destroyers were armed with a lot of torpedos therefore making them a capital ship counter, light cruisers tended to have loads of lighter weapons and thus tended to counter destroyers. Corvettes are not a war ship, at best they are anti piracy, at worst they are patrol ships

The synth change to help machine empires assimilate other robots and become roving liberators of their kind is a fun take too.

Can you change government into driven assimilators?

@@forsakenquery I'm not actually 100% sure. If not, there are always mods.

No just no I have no clue how hoi naval works and I am very happy with the system in stellaris I don't like the combat much much prefer the economy but thats just me with every game If they made ships more complex I'd just let the AI deal with it yeesh

I dropped out of Hoi4 when they started the naval rework. It’s too much work in an area I’m not interested in. Maybe people like this but I prefer I could drop the whole navy on ai management.

In space most of those wouldn’t matter also the hoi4 naval system is flawed because you only need good subs and destroyer’s to beat almost any navy

@@mannybear4691 No way, against the AI, maybe, but against a player or when outnumbered you must have good fleet composition.

@@mannybear4691 tbf thats close to how its become irl above water boats are sitting ducks for missile strikes and planes subs are the most valuable ship in the modern world cause they are hard to detect So 1940's destroys and subs being the most valuable isn't that unrealistic

I do the same thing and usually it works pretty well.

Your battleships and dreads' escort are the cruisers xD Or that ur dread's escort are the battleships and battecruiser

I've gone crazy over the meta and this comment reminds me that it's *just a game.* More RP for me.

Your trooper hangar idea is so much better than it sounds, because that opens up the possibility of not only convenient ground combat (at the cost of fewer soldiers than transport ships,) but also the ability to hijack enemy ships mid combat! Imagine playing as a bunch of scrapper pirates winning wars with the enemy's own ships, only to scrap those same ships later on for a a quick profit. That would be hilarious!

Start attack after killing every army with orbital stike. Defender draft population forever in every round until planet is empty.

Division Designer when

You have no videos though? Unless it's a different platform your on

@@nepnep1802 Because that's my personal account, sorry

@@RusCoon fair enough, I should've thought of that because I'm doing the same lmao, me got smooth brain

You have an great name! :D

That would be really cool, not only to expand on the slightly small range of standard weapon types the game has, but also halt hull/shield regeneration enough to weaken them for your next attack. And in some hilarious cases, kill from the grave!

Thank you so much!

@@MontuPlays No, thank you for the amazing content! Taught me so much about the game

Wow, thank you!

Wait, ship-boarding? Or is ground combat now happening in space?

Actually, one of the game developers had been pushing for army modules on ships for years (I forget who - ASpec interviewed him one rime and he talked about it). Obviously, so far the other developers haven’t agreed with him.

I disagree, a more advanced transport ship selection could be interesting Ie introducing planetary siege warfare But slots would mean you just have to design a cheap corvette to carry only troops, the main ships would never carry any infantry slot. This would just be transport ships by any other name

They’re probably aiming to be more WW2 like since that’s what it seems to be a mashup of anyway. The way it worked in WW2 was battleships are the strongest overall, but they’re slow and have big slow guns. Destroyers countered battleships by packing as much firepower into as small a place as possible, and cruises and corvettes were made to counter destroyers by being better armed or more agile respectfully

Corvettes did not do battle in ww2, why would they? They have light to no armour, they have light weaponry and destroyers can move just as quickly. and they certainly didnt counter battleships

@@hardcorelace5566 I know corvettes didn’t counter battleships, they counter destroyers. I meant to say counter and not countered since corvettes are the modern anti-destroyer ship

@@damonedrington3453 Except, corvettes aren't a counter to Destroyers either. During WWII, corvettes served as cheap escorts for supply convoys between allied nations. Destroyers were a counter to torpedo boats, aircraft and submarines, which were, in turn, all viable counters to cruisers and battleships. Destroyers were historically quite vulnerable to battleships due to their relative lack of armor and firepower.

@@damonedrington3453 The way it actually worked was Destroyers protect Carriers by hunting Submarines & shooting down aircraft. Cruisers acted as bigger Destroyers and Battleships were just fat targets mostly used for land bombardment and then Carriers trash everything else.

Increased HP , and they now require a G slot . so only cruiser - corvette will be able to have them . your BB will not have those, you will spam cruisers probably , but cruisers are not as resilient as BB , and BB will still have the range advantage with artilery . your alpha strike will come after theyr alpha. and we don't know yet if NL will be intercetable now.

The main change is turning them into torpedo weapons rather than large slot weapons, which limits them to cruisers and the new torpedo corvettes. (I assume regular corvettes will no longer have access to a G slot configuration, then.) They used the name "energy torpedo", although I haven't seen any mention that they might become susceptible to point defense. But still, moving them to G slots and giving them a minimum range is an interesting change, as it cuts battleships (and titans) from the possible ship types that could make use of them. I assume the L slots now need to select between kinetic artillery and plasma cannons for increased hull damage choices.

I think it would be cool if AIs made fleet composition based on ethics/civics.

maybe something similar to how HOI4 limits how many armies a general can have? Like, you get a "field Marshall" and thus can handle 4 fleets, each with an admiral that can handle between 20 and 50 ships depending on skill and traits. Would also make admiral choosing less "reroll until the guy with regen shows up"

Naval capacity combined with command limit already limits the number of fleets thought.

@@0x97B55C23D18 Barely enough, plus the AI still makes a thousand tiny fleets.

@@0x97B55C23D18 most late game players agree that after a certain point,you might as well build as many ships as you can and screw the limit

More like 12-18 months

@@MontuPlays, I'm just trying to be an optimist...

Or you bring smaller ships for defense, which is the goal

every 10 years for a shot might be better actually

That's already the case with tracking. The biggest weapons have no tracking and are countered by the evasion of smaller ships

@@destroyer1667 but the problem is the smaller ships fill the same role as the large ones and I think what I suggested is more specific instead of relying on evasion as a flat thing for all ships vs ships

Something like overpenetration could explain that. E.g. energy torpedoes partially dissipate without relevant effect because the target is so weak the shot just flies through and doesn't impart the full energy to the ship.

@@Llortnerof but these are space ships. Get through the shield and put a hole in the hull and *boop* depressurized

​@@h3069 Unless you basically remove the entire compartment, depressurisation takes time. And since this is about combat ships, having seperate compartments to minimise pressure loss would be a basic necessity, since getting holes in the hull is virtually guaranteed to happen eventually. The shot might even pass through an unpressurised space if you're lucky. The pressure difference to space isn't that big. A bike tire will lose its air faster than a space ship through an equivalent sized hole.

@@Llortnerof torps go bang on impact though. It'd just slam into the vettes armor and the small ship would just go bye bye

@@h3069 Realistically, so would a big one. But that'd make for bad game balance where every fight is just rocket tag. The detonation would still hit a corvette less than a much bigger ship, and they'd likely have proximity fuses, so no slamming into ships anyway. A corvettes better acceleration would then let it get out of the danger area more easily. At the end, though, you have to remember that Stellaris space combat isn't exactly particularly realistic anyway.

Hoarse*

I would not call giving everyone fertile, erudite, robust and fleeting traits a "micromanagement".

Ground combat just isn’t the center of the game. It would be best when automatic, yet interesting. There could be more (any) events regarding it, yet not too common as to not overwhelm multiplayer players. The “graphics” need to be updated as well. Large battles consisting of tens of millions of soldiers entertain you via some balls with health bars going down. I would personally prefer a sci-fi battle map, with units in combat shown fighting each other

@@imbadatusernames6295 I disagree with some of what you said. Ground combat doesn't happen often enough that it'd be a hassle to do manually. I think invasions lasting a month or two is weird, it's an entire planet, the process should take a year or two without support from above, like I suggested. If we're to talk about what the game is "about" it's about space empires. Most of the game is spent managing economies. Explore, expand, exploit and exterminate. We should have more fun ways of waging war, instead of bigger number wins, click the enemy. I love stellaris, but I'd love it more if there was more to fortresses than just soldier jobs, more to different types of soldiers than "it costs more, does more damage and takes longer to build". They did an update for diplomacy and federations that was cool, I'd like to see a similar update overhaul all warfare. Imagine fleet formations, specialist ship types, boarding, actual tactics like flanking, not just bigger number + rock paper scissors wins. Imagine commandeering enemy vessels.

@@ub3rfr3nzy94 I disagree, as soon as you let the little shits build habitats then you’re going to be invading/cracking 2-3 places per inhabited system. It gets ridiculous on 1k star galaxies. No ai habitats is a must have mod for me because of this. I feel like having to micro all land invasions would be terrible, and a hassle, add more of what everyone already hates, and would immediately cause me to disable the dlc after about half a game While I agree invasions should take longer on occupied planets, however, planets with little to no garrison basically have no choice but to surrender (genocidal empires (non civics included) should have more resistance however, like guerrilla forces) I do agree that warfare needs to be overhauled. It’s boring and completely dependent on how many artillery battleships and basically nothing else for the player in singleplayer and maybe a few other small niches in competitive multiplayer. However, if all it’s going to do is add more micro to an already micro-heavy game, then i don’t want it. In my opinion, choices about army creation are fine, but ground combat itself doesn’t need any player input except for maybe a little bit of clicking (why I suggested a little map that moves around). For example, order your fleets to stop food shipments on a 3k ecumonopolis, forcing them to surrender without a fight to not risk pop death, or something to that degree (also colossi should totally scare planets into surrendering) I’ll be honest though, diplomacy still needs an overhaul. I open that screen to shove envoys in their face until they like me, start a spy operation, or do something relative to war; I have never made a federation, and I have had 1 vassal and have never been one (mostly because my play-styles aren’t great for it). It feels hallow to me. Of course, I still think a war overhaul is necessary, but Federations didn’t scratch my itch, so to speak

It would add an entirely seperate gameplay tool in a game that doesn;t necessarily neeed it. I wonder if it would work adding an option to switch it off or function as a classic/reworked option. I personally would love more fleshed ot ground combat, but I totally get people not wanting an RTS added to a game with such a large macro lense

The only acceptable ground combat reword would be if you played an optional battle tech skermish for that map

Ground combat is just bland in general. It should either be reworked or removed completely. Its not fun having to take on a +5k garrison especially when your army is much weaker and you have to wait for you to recruit and assemble.

Yeah, I don't see the point in a ground combat rework, either. Especially the position of "make it like hoi4"

You're dumb it's a game it's not supposed to be based on reality

Actually, I think multiplicative damage can make sense if you consider the word Overpenetration. If torpedoes have AP warheads, then on small ships they just punch straight through, a few areas need to be sealed down, but unless a lucky strike holes the reactor or life support, it passes through. On a battleship, however, piercing the hull slows the warhead enough for a secondary warhead to detonate and do massive damage without overpenetration. As well, I think in this case it’s meant to evoke PT boats and torpedo bombers, which had to draw close to their targets to line up the killing blow and not miss.

I honestly disagree, you’re looking at this from a realism perspective, not a gameplay perspective. Maybe it’s weird for damage multipliers to exist irl, but they could make the naval combat much more interesting. Personally it seems exciting to me that they are even looking at changing the boring meta and I’ll withhold my opinion until it comes out.

It would seem