Re: Stellaris - me too, and I bet a lot of other people as well. It has what my friend group calls "the Civilization problem"; the initial setup and expansion is by far more interesting than the late game when things are more static. Stellaris does it better than the Civ games, in my opinion (mid and late game crises and events help), but still falls into the same trap. I'm not really sure how this could be solved, but maybe something like late-game expansion opportunities (like the L cluster, but more) and more robust internal politics and espionage could help.

[–] BD1sHappyFeet@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Glad to know it's not just me. Civ and Stellaris both, game progression for me goes like: fun, fun, fun, yeah screw that guy!, fun ... getting less fun, definitely not as fun anymore, meh.

I just picked up Cult of the Lamb which is at least silly fun. Bonus points for blasphemy!

[–] giacomo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. I've seen there is a mod to add more mid/late game encounters or content, but I haven't tried it yet. I think more developed diplomatic events would make mid/late game more interesting. Most of my playthroughs end up being an arms race towards the end, which sure that can be a fun aspect of the game, but not super interesting. Very much like civ, and I think you're correct they both suffer from the late game "domination" aspect.

My idea of a successful Stellaris game it not coming in first, but making it to the end with a functional empire.

I'm also probably a noob when it comes to Stellaris, but I still enjoy it.