Feedback Requested: Factions and Politics

[Calvax]

Lol I tried to answer this post when it came at midnight but I was too slow before it was removed Luckily I had my answer saved.

Thanks once again for seeking feedback from the community! I'll be sure to fill out the form.

For me factions in stellaris have never felt satisfying because they don't feel like political factions. They have no presence on the map, they barely interact with the governing council, and above all they're a consistent static list of demands that you only care about for unity (happiness and governing ethics attraction are so easy to max out in stellaris that you don't have to care about factions who are unhappy).

My ideal vision of a faction rework would be for all of these things to be reversed. Factions should have dynamic demands that respond to what happen in the game and change over time. They should be able to be felt on the map so that in the event of powerful unhappy factions you can see which worlds/sectors they dominate in and therefore which are going to rebel (or whatever). In the same way I want to see factions represented on the governing council screen and mean more than just a single on/off pip that gives you a unity boost. There should be actual consequences for having a council that does not represent the most powerful factions, and it should not be a mere static boost/loss to unity. Ideally there would be interesting and distinct buffs/debuffs that happen to your empire when a powerful faction is happy or unhappy.

I'd also really want to see factions that aren't just built around an ethic. For example; a special interest group made primarily of one species in your empire that want you to liberate their homeworld from an unpopular empire, or a sector secessionist group that is significantly different in species/factions to the rest of the empire that it wants to leave. These special interest groups could then influence factions. I appreciate this is all quite similar to Vicky 3 but I do think there's some great things about how factions and interest groups work in that game, and how they relate to the government and the pops.

Lastly I'd really like a pass to be taken at what the factions care about. As it stands there's already a lot of weird stuff, like militarists that make demands as though they were authoritarian (like harsh vassalisation) even if you're not playing an authoritarian empire.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

I LOVE the ethics system I wish there were more of them and civics and everything. However lately I feel like civics are less of "this is going to define your empire in a way that matters to roleplay" and more of "hey this is the [DLC feature] civic in case you want to [DLC feature] harder". Maybe having like a civic-like mechanic that defines what your empire is "good at", wholly separate from civics, could be used so I can have my couple roleplay civics and then one gameplay "civic" specifically so my empire can be good at catching space creatures or whatever but it's still a beacon of liberty plus environmentalists so I don't have to pick between roleplay or new features?

 

[Miguelinileugim]

I feel like factions do way too little, it would be nice if they actually had demands once in a while like democratic mandates that I could choose to fulfill or not. Just borrow it from the diet system in eu4 pretty much, even if it's just building a starbase somewhere or taking a system or accumulate 5 years worth of income or something. The influence + loyalty mechanic is FANTASTIC in eu4 so I wish that loyalty relied on things beyond their preferences and that they had some sort of influence whereas regardless of attraction (albeit it should interact with it) the effects they have on my empire (beyond unity production) depends on things such as how many pops support them and perhaps just straight up borrow the "privileges" from eu4 so I can enact policies that suit them directly in the factions menu.

Actually screw it just get chloroform and a ticket to Barcelona and kidnap Johan.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

This isn't hoi4 so the focus system would not quite work here... or would it? Why can't factions have their own event-heavy storyline whereas if they become influential enough they pull you into a bunch of events with meaningful choices that impact what the faction looks in the future? Does being xenophile for example mean total equality or just [redacted] xenos with great interest but you don't want to give them true equality? Does being materialist mean pursuing science and that's it or erradicating spiritualism? Is militarism a practical affair mostly focused on defending and sometimes attacking, or is it a vicious thing where they demand you raze planets with bombardment or even use the colossus if available?

I just don't want boring factions that do nothing, can't they have a story, some customization based on event choices, and more depth than "we hate xenos declare war on them because we're evil" or "science is good we love science please make robots legal"?

 

[V-Metamorph]

Eladrin with the incredibles take again.

Internal politic alone can not have enough influence on your neighbors to be engaging enough

Imo Stellaris is and should always be about how you interact with other empire and xenos. The call to make it "cultural and politic" is a relief.

 

[Sigilstone17]

The main issue with factions is they just don't do anything. Factions need more agency and action, more ability to have tangible effects beyond some extra unity.

Less strict ties to ethics would be also be nice, like a miners union that gives additional resources when made happy.

Factions need more of an opportunity to make your life a living hell if they're neglected

 

[Vernichtere]

Please short time goals for factions. Faction a wants a conquest of system b.

 

[Draelian]

I think that the monarchical system, just as it does not have elections every time a leader has to be replaced, should have changes in relation to factions.

First, the imperial heir should not be generated automatically.

Second, we should have a political marriage election, affecting factions, after which, if we accept a proposal
link, then yes, we have an heir, (unless the leader of that faction is from another race and we do not have xenocompatibility, in which case, it is better to prepare for what is going to happen when there are no heirs to the crown).

Along these lines, refusing to marry would cause us to be given the option again from time to time. Finally, if the monarch dies without heirs, we already know that there is an event that practically never happens (in fact I have never seen it) that would greet us very strongly. .

I also think that in general we would have to have events or commissions to strengthen the factions, for example, the military faction could ask to have a minimum fleet power or do a patrol to a specific planet before a certain amount of time passes or the xenophiles that we name to a leader who is not of our species in a council position... small things that give them the feeling that they exist but that if ignored do not have a severe penalty.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Factions for gestalt empires are a no-brainer. A gestalt empire could be just like a single person who happens to have billions of mostly dependent minds, so why can't they have personality traits? Factions could be more so like "beliefs", "instincts" or something like that. I especially like the idea of a collectivism/individualism "ethic" as to finally make gestalt empires behave not just like the borg but kinda like regular empires. So for example a gestalt empire could have the following authorities:

- Centralized (enabled by collectivist): Happiness is shared across all planets, consumer goods are consumed based a policy and increase/decrease global happiness which only depends on this policy and some empire-wide modifiers.
- Decentralized (disabled by fanatic collectivist and fanatic individualist): Happiness is shared per planet, consumer goods are consumed based on a policy and increase/decrease happiness on a per planet basis, however planets can be happier or unhappier based on their amenities and other local factors.
- Autonomous (enabled by individualist): Happiness is per-pop, consumer goods are consumed based on living standards and amenities impact individual happiness. Basically like a regular empire except with some subtle differences such as policies, ethics effects, unique civics and different answers to events. Basically if you want to play an "egalitarian hive mind" this is how you do it.

Extra points if I can turn a regular empire into gestalt via ascension as so many people have asked before, or even the other way around presumably also through ascension.

 

[Obeliskkai]

I filled out the form, was actually one where I felt I had a lot to say.

One thing I really want these proposed reworks to tackle is that the sense of species we have in Stellaris really is too ephemeral. Races need a sense of who they are in relation to everyone else.

As I said in the form..."We have no way of depicting racism (think of the way the Centauri looked down on the Narns in Babylon 5) or hatred of an oppressor (how the Narns think of the Centauri). If there are pops of species A living on a planet dominated by neutral species C alongside pops of species B, and species B has their own state which controls the homeworld of species A (as well as other worlds where species A is in the majority), Species A and B should NOT get on and it should contribute to societal unrest, much to the chagrin of Species C."

Similarly, we have no real way of depicting that 'yearning to be free' that was mentioned in that self-same series. Unless I take strenuous efforts as the player, if I conquer the homeworld of another species I shouldn't expect them to be easily pacified. They should be a hotbed of resistance...and by that I mean foreign forces might be able to fund them. Perhaps there could be levels of social unrest from 'pacified' to 'grumbling' to 'protests' to 'riots' to 'terrorist campaign' to 'full blown revolt' (though the last one should be a war.

And if I control a planet full of one species, next to an Empire that is dominated by their people (which I almost certainly will have conquered, but it could be they settled their due to a migration treaty), then that planet should be looking to secede and join that Empire.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

It would be nice if factions interacted with other systems, such as the galactic community. Obviously my egalitarian faction should CARE about me supporting/opposing egalitarian laws in the galactic community! Internal and galactic politics should be at least lightly intertwined, each empire could have a dominant faction which impacts its relationship with other empires. After all a democracy IRL can have a conservative or progressive government regardless of its general "ethics", so in Stellaris if a democratic or otherwise election leads to a different faction being in charge, like say a materialist one instead of a spiritualist one, that should impact my relationship with other empires pretty significantly. A pacifist empire with a militarist faction in charge could well be seen positively by other militarist empires, mitigating or replacing the relations penalty from being pacifist from a militarist empire's perspective.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

I would like elections, democratic oligarchic or dictatorial, to have an event chain with random events happening in it that can dramatically change their popularity/influence and thus who gets elected. Imperial authority could have a disputed heir event triggering as well as a coronation event with some interesting options. Electoral promises are great and all but just the ability, kinda like in victoria 3, to see the election coming up and having some events fire that let me influence it would be amazing. Especially if each candidate is supported by a faction (maybe multiple if coalitions are added?) and which one wins does not just impact the leader but also which faction is in charge which could have some significant diplomatic effects as well as some modifiers (possibly scaling with faction influence if it gets added, just like in eu4!).

 

[yurcick]

I'd like a Victoria in space.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Some unique civics related to factions would be lovely. Parliamentary system and shadow council should DEFINITELY have an effect on how factions work. Such as having parliamentary system disable certain faction-related actions such as suppression or changing their effects while shadow council strengthens those as they let the player puppeteer them.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

I feel like ethic attraction and UI stuff has been implemented pretty poorly. Factions should always be shown even if their attraction is 0%, just perhaps greyed out allowing for example for them to be banned or unbanned instead of them popping back over and over again, as well as promoted/suppressed without them, again, popping back immediately.

Also attraction becomes meaningless because ethic attraction bonuses are INSANE. Instead it should be really really hard to get ethic attraction modifiers of any type unless you're really going out of your way to get it, it's not like a bunch of pops supporting the wrong faction does much beyond a manageable happiness penalty. And ethic attraction should also shift really dramatically based on random events as to represent an empire who changes its mind every other decade rather than one which, even if you're not trying at all, just settles with a certain set of ethics and never wants to change them outside of wild conquest or player intervention.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Also please I beg you let me somehow get other empires to follow my own ethics without using a liberation war. I want to make my subjects of my own ethic if they're loyal enough, or have a diplomatic option to promote a certain ethic in another empire at an influence and relations cost. Federations could have one "mandatory" ethic (decided by federation leader, changeable every 20 years or on leader change, and independent of federation type) which all members are compelled to have or else get kicked out (this could rely on a federation law which decides if they're just prevented from having the opposite or required to have it outright), of course hegemonies should just be able to force their members as kicking them out would not be an option.

 

[Goblin-Cookie]

Not played Stellaris for a while, but when I did I recalled that there needed to be more constraints or consequences from acting against your chosen ethics. Basically hypocrisy should matter.

Factions should be generally passive if you follow your proper path, even if they are just passively hate you but they should actively complain and make demands if you prove a hypocrite.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

I think pop modification should matter politically. When modifying a pop there should be a "score" which defines if I'm improving or worsening their genome and that should impact both pops and factions. Nerve-stapling would be -1000 for example but others like smart or weak could have small modifiers.

Positive modifications should have no impact on factions or pops as they're to be expected, perhaps materialist factions might like it but that's it. NEGATIVE modifications, even if they're good for the empire (they're negative from the pops perspective) should have severe consequences. Making xenophiles really angry unless it is done to the primary species, egalitarians always angry unless it's a xeno and the empire has xenophobic ethics and authoritarians really angry when it is done to the primary species.

Pops should get a small happiness boost after being improved, perhaps dependent on how much did their "score" improve. When they're worsened they should get a DRASTIC penalty to happiness. Ethics should also impact this, perhaps by creating a genetic modification policy:
- Banned (default, materialist faction dislikes this)
- Positive only (can only improve score)
- Citizen exemption (citizen species can only improve score, residents and below can be worsened, xenophiles hate this and empire must not have xenophile ethic)
- Always allowed (can improve or worsen everyone even citizen species, egalitarians hate this, empire must not have egalitarian ethic)

 

[Zaacplot300]

I'm indifferent to factions and politics but the main thing I do like about the system is that its rather passive. Stellaris already has a lot going on between exploration, expansion, warfare, and many many other things that I'm grateful that factions don't take up too much time and attention. With that said, I'm personally wary of a large-scale "internal politics" expansion because well, a lot of it sounds like content for contents sake. Complicated elections/leader replacement, more demanding factions, lots of politically focused consequences; a lot of this feels like it would be fun to play through only a couple times and then never again. Also something the AI would have trouble with, they are already hilariously incompetent at managing amenities, crime, and stability so adding more systems like that seems like a way to make them loose harder.