10/4/2023 0 Comments Stellaris limbo hive mindMore early settlements means more pop growth means more research and economy means more winning, it's as simple as that. Yes, habitat districts are better, but habitat capitals are worse (they cost alloys in upkeep, and don't upgrade much) and there are fewer buildings or (resource) districts available. Hivemind is very good at wide play though, thanks to extra buildings slots, pop growth, and assimilation.Ĭlick to expand.Even on 0.25x habitable worlds, a normal expansive early-game strategy can find and settle habitable planets of size 10-25 faster than anybody (Void Dweller or not) can build habitats of size 4, and I'll spend fewer alloys doing it, too. However, they can start on a Ringworld though, which is also pretty good (and arguably, the strongest origin, tall or not). Unfortunately, Hiveminds can't be void dwellers. In this respect, Hives also doesn't have anything particularly advantage going for it that other entities cannot do, but other than void dwellers, no faction has a real benefit to tall play anyway. I prefer this playstyle over the rapid expansion method as I hate watching my fleet travel from one end of the galaxy to the other. Generally this means spamming habitats everywhere in the systems you own, and prioritizing that over expanding the number of systems (This is still not as strong as expanding as much as you can, but it does mean less borders to protect and easier fortification of your borders). However, right now though, for many players in Stellaris, 'tall' means high density system systems. Personally, I prefer Hiveworld anyway due to its more general usage, wider applicability, and quicker terraforming, but people's preferences can vary. They just get Hiveworlds instead of Ecumenopoli. However, you can certainly still play this way, and Hivemind is no worse or better at building super planets over anyone else. If anything, people with more planets will develop populated planets faster, since your total population growth increases with every planet you own (a questionable mechanic, but the devs said they may change this in the future). Generally, if you can have a large number of planets, there is little reason not to do so, since they will all develop more or less at the same pace. large number of poorly developed planets. There is no tall game-play in Stellaris, in the sense of having a very few or small number of super planets vs. PDX made the Life-Seeded origin available to hives just for this, even though it was a bad enough origin back when it was a civic and nobody would have competitively chosen it for a hive even if they could (it's worse now, since the opportunity cost of not taking a good or even mediocre origin is much higher). It's not like the AI will actually be a threat (competitive players would be another story). If you want to go tall for the heck of it, hives are an especially bad choice - everything from their authority bonuses to their sources of admin cap to their access to the Adaptability tree screams "go wide!" - but you can do it if you want. There are some empire types that are theoretically better at tall, like machines or corps, but even those are definitely much better off going wide. There is literally no empire type that is good at tall in unmodded Stellaris today tall is pretty much categorically a bad strategy right now (the ability to generate empire capacity from jobs means that staying under cap, and thus avoiding any real penalty from empire size, is trivial).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |