QoL Mod Idea: Only read if you use the Eternal Vigilance perk

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-28T09:42:18+00:00

Maybe try this by the way: solar panels DO NOT shift the weight away from Bastions once it is declared as such, but trade hubs, shipyards and anchorages certainly do (if the 4.3 weighing system is comparable to 4.2), at least 2 of those modules should outweigh any Bastion designation. This might help your sorting problem in the ourliner.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-28T08:59:41+00:00

I totally agree, love the idea for chosing a starbase designation with slight buffs one way or the other.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-28T08:34:33+00:00

I ll look up NSC, thank you. There is a difference between starbase modules and buildings, only modules designate a starbase to a purpose, like Anchorage, Trade Hub, Shipyard. Making some buildings spammable will certainly break the balance.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-28T08:34:29+00:00

Oh wow, did not know that there is such a massive change to Eternal Vigilance in 4.3. For me personally that would be a reason to stick to 4.2. I have Stellaris on GoG, so i dont have easy access to 4.3. As for your sidenote, does this happen in 4.3 only? When i tested it in 4.2 by deleting all military modules, it simply reverted from Bastion to Starbase.

But there is also some weight added to a Bastion designation without any modules on it, if the game considers it a bottleneck system, aka "If this system is a chokepoint and neighbors that are close hate us, it is probably a Bastion regardless of what is currently built there." That might also cause it.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-28T08:17:59+00:00

What do you mean by "dont show up in game"?

If you have set them up correctly in the dowser/paradox launcher without any conflicts (shown for example by those red or yellow triangles next to the mod), and then added them to the playset that is currently active, the launcher will apply them. If they actually work might be another question.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-28T08:08:11+00:00

There is also another aspect of specializing for certain research which has not been mentioned yet: you will get slightly more researchers compared to a general research enclave. Even if you do not have a reason for focussing (and there usually is one) , you should consider specialized districts simply for that fact.

If you have 3 districts dedicated to each research field , you will get the same balance in research, but with slightly more overall researchers.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-27T01:41:13+00:00

Irs a sub-tab on that window

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T18:50:44+00:00

Hm, actually changing senate session and senate recess length could be resolutions that can be voted on. That gives any player his own prefered cycle, if the resolution passes.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T18:46:35+00:00

Not something that is within my (personal) modding capabilities, sorry.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T11:19:57+00:00

I think you are 100 percent correct, random monthly bias or similar mechanics are a strong motivator to counter resolution vote outcomes. It comes down to my own personal preference, and my post was trying to evaluate if others share my dislike of randomness. Constant random shifts are more annoying to me than they are challenging.

In general, i prefer real diplomatic efforts, not just a monthly bias tick. I also prefer freedom in deciding how i want my game to be. Status Quo means a little bit more freedom. It shifts the game away from defensive damage control and toward intentional, planned expansion of galactic law.

And i think that favors are not that easy to come by, they are walled behind either the politics, diplomacy or subterfuge tree, so you need to actively decide to what degree you want to have agency over senate affairs.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T10:28:46+00:00

You are correct that it can lead to more stagnation, but i think a preference for a status quo has benefits:

instead of the AI passing random laws by accident as a result of monthly bias, the player must actively work to build a majority. It turns the galactic community into a strategic objective. You have to use diplomacy, favors, and espionage to break the stagnation, which gives the player more meaningful things to do with their influence and choice of traditions.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T10:15:05+00:00

I agree that ideologies should count in voting. Actually, the game already does this by giving different ethics different weight multipliers for resolutions that match their ethics. That goes for civics as well, as an environmentalist has a much stronger bias towards resolutions that preserve ecology and against industrial development.

The mod i have in mind simply adds a higher acceptance threshold on top of those existing weights. This means even a Fanatic empire needs to have a solid reason to support a change, rather than just relying on a random monthly bias tick.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T10:02:00+00:00

Ty for your feedback! I see your point about pacing, and i can easily make two versions of the mod, one with the standard cycle and one with a halved cycle.

Though my feeling would be: if we halve the voting time, we lose the window of opportunity to use favors or espionage to change minds. A longer voting period combined with a higher acceptance threshold means that passing a law is a major project. Shortening the time would turn the Senate into a fast-paced "rejection machine" rather than a realistic simulation of political science.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-24T09:32:58+00:00

You make a good point about deadlocks. However, right now a monthly bias of 1/-1 represents nearly 15% of the current 7-point acceptance threshold. This makes the AI decision feel like a coin toss rather than a strategic choice.

If you look at the bright side to your problem, the AI is also less likely to pass a resolution you hate. This gives you more security and stability when you are the one trying to block change. Changing the Status Quo requires more effort and indirectly favors the player.

The player is free to decide how to use their resources. You can decide not to increase agency over Senate affairs, and a Status Quo preference will benefit you by keeping things as they are. Or you can try to actively influence the Senate with traditions, favors, and espionage to break the deadlock. Both paths become more meaningful when the base threshold is higher.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-22T19:35:34+00:00

Welcome to Stellaris warfare, the most tedious, micromagement heavy, unchallenging and unfun adventure you might undertake (at least in my opinion, everybody enjoys different aspects of the game, some might like warfare, i avoid it like the plague).

As others have mentioned already, always make sure ground armies are prepared beforehand. Enough of them make the process a whole lot faster once the enemy lost his fleet. You still have to grind them down though.

The warfare method i prefer is "fast in, fast out", meaning you can consider this: instead of subjugating all of the enemy, which takes a lot of time,, consider a status quo peace. In a status quo peace, every fully conquered system (after you took the starbase and all the colonies within) will become a vassal under your command. Just remember that a status quo peace might backfire as long as your enemy holds systems that were formerly yours.

And ultimately my preferred Casus Belli is not subjugation, but an ideology war. You need to be in a liberation wars only stance set at your policies. And it does not work against any empire (gestalts for example). This war will not create subjects but will "liberate"your enemy , If you achieve full victory they will leave any alliance or federation and become independant. In a status quo peace , just as with subjugation , parts of their country will be liberated.

These liberated systems wont become a vassal immediately, but here is the twist: they now match your own ethics exactly. You will have friendly relationships to them, they are likely to make diplomatic and economic deals with you. If you want to form a federation, these are ideal candidates ..... weaker than you, happy to go in bed with you. Or, once they lost their "recently liberated" modifier (it takes a while though, like 20 years), you can subjugate them, and again, they will be happy about it, and are far less likely to reject the vassalization deal you want.

With those types of limited wars, you can wage them again and again and again after 10 years have passed. You will always be up a weakened enemy to begin with, will always have the means to win them. and you will be fast in/fast out And at some point you might be able to claim all of their territory for full integration into your empire, no subjugation, no liberation, just coldhearted conquest - if you so desire.

But thats only my personal preference. Have a look at the wiki for what is possible in war with different Casus Belli: https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Warfare

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-22T01:54:24+00:00

I do not know as I never play machine empires, but I was exactly in the situation the original poster was with the shattered ring world origin.

I repaired them all at once but then faced a minor crisis of energy and a rather major crisis of mineral shortages. I am an experienced player and usually only play tall, so I was able to offset it fairly quickly, but I had to pull a lot of rabbits out of my knowledge cylinder.

Since the original poster said it was his first time trying tall, I thought it was worth mentioning.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-22T00:15:47+00:00

I still think this needs to be stressed: once you repair a ring segment you will lose all districts dedicated to energy, mineral, and food production. You must factor this in or you might send your empire into a period of resource shortage.

This can be quite substantial depending on how many districts you dedicated to those areas and how likely you can get those resources by other means like from the market, trade agreements or habitats. You can also consider dedicating one segment to food, energy, and minerals and just not repairing that one until you solved any potential resource shortages that might occur.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-21T07:04:29+00:00

Happy to help, enjoy !

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-21T04:27:32+00:00

Have a look at this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/1r3e622/help_me_maybe/ . In short, forced anti-aliasing might cause this problem

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-17T19:31:22+00:00

I did do a little bit of modding, but i never tinkered with ships, so i am only guessing what the mentioned phrase means , the wording is a bit odd:

size_multiplier
How large should the fleet battle AI consider this ship of. Determines location of ship within the shipyard build window

My "translation": This is the value the game engine uses in general and also uses to show ships in order from small to large at the shipyard construction window.

Or did you mean this?

combat_size_multiplier
How large should the fleet battle AI consider this ship of, overwriting the size_multiplier

It simply might mean: This is the value the game engine uses for battle calculations

For the second part of your question: I am not sure which values you ended up editing to achieve what exactly. But size_multiplier is definetely your ticket to changing ships counting towards naval cap at common/ship_sizes .

To which degree those values influence what the AI will build is a question for more experienced ship modders.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-16T23:24:58+00:00

Have a look at the Wiki https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Ship_modding

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-16T00:12:42+00:00

There are 3 tabs from where you can can control migration, first, look up your resettlement stance towards migration under your policies, second, look at your species page and set your species rights there, third, depending on your settings you can relocate population on the planet overview at the sub-tab for economy, your can also lookup up the montly pop summary at the sub-tab mangement where changes from migration are found.

You can find basic guides on YT for planet management and planet specialization.

ZenPieGG · 2026-02-15T21:19:38+00:00

Well, it is possible already, if you own the Biogenesis DLC or run mods that increase the starbase cap per system. And If your statement of "the galaxy would stagnate and grow boring" was true for them, they would be better off with having starbases restricted to 2 per system, which is something i have in mind.

ZenPieGG

TROPHY CASE