Stellaris Dev Diary #131 - MegaCorporations

[The Librarian]

1) I find it fascinating how many people seem to be automatically downvoting the idea of socialism showing up in a video game that has slavers, genocidal maniacs, insane religious warrior priests, and robot overlords. Like whether or not you agree with the ideology personally, it's totally something that fits within a game whose major claim to fame is the ability to play out virtually any scifi trope you can imagine.

2) That aside, I really have to disagree with some of the more friendly posters who've claimed that existing perks already align with having a socialist society as a gameplay element. Just having access to more consumer goods doesn't even *begin* to touch on the kind of changes we're talking about in such a society. Nor does it address the different ways that society may engage in the universe. For those with any experience with it, The Culture series by Iain M. Banks is a whole different beast from a culture with just "more resources". For one, resource consumption actually plumets to earth when you have a culture in which conspicuous consumption isn't a thing and basic needs are easily handled. Social distinction comes from participation in science, art, and good works in the universe. The kinds of things that the society is interested in spending resources on tends to end up being mega projects that can benefit huge amounts of the population and interacting with the outside galaxy.

I'd totally expect to spend ascension perks and several society techs on making this kind of thing happen (kind of like the Synthetic, Biological, and Psionic Ascension paths) as we're talking about pretty drastic social structure and philosophical changes but yeah, I'd really like to see some effort put to this end. Similarly, it'd be awesome to see ascension perks and society techs dedicated to a rampant capitalist machine that totally infiltrates every aspect of the society. Like a megacorp on absolute crack.

Seriously, beyond kicking the crap out of arrogant fallen empires, smacking down extra galactic invaders, and spreading the one true religion of cute psychic space squirrels, the major draw for me to Stellaris is the openness to explore virtually every kind of society we can dream of and match them up against the dreams of others in the galaxy...with the occasional need to purge heathen unbelievers...

 

[Kakotheres]

2) That aside, I really have to disagree with some of the more friendly posters who've claimed that existing perks already align with having a socialist society as a gameplay element. Just having access to more consumer goods doesn't even *begin* to touch on the kind of changes we're talking about in such a society. Nor does it address the different ways that society may engage in the universe. For those with any experience with it, The Culture series by Iain M. Banks is a whole different beast from a culture with just "more resources". For one, resource consumption actually plumets to earth when you have a culture in which conspicuous consumption isn't a thing and basic needs are easily handled. Social distinction comes from participation in science, art, and good works in the universe. The kinds of things that the society is interested in spending resources on tends to end up being mega projects that can benefit huge amounts of the population and interacting with the outside galaxy.

The way the future civic 'Share The Burden' actually works will help represent this; once basic needs are taken care of through consumer goods, unemployed pops generate both Science and Unity, to represent exactly what you are talking about.

How, exactly, you choose to generate the consumer goods might be the real question. I suspect people will go for robots of some description.

 

[Calvax]

1) I find it fascinating how many people seem to be automatically downvoting the idea of socialism showing up in a video game that has slavers, genocidal maniacs, insane religious warrior priests, and robot overlords. Like whether or not you agree with the ideology personally, it's totally something that fits within a game whose major claim to fame is the ability to play out virtually any scifi trope you can imagine.

I can't speak for everyone but that's not the impression I've got. Rather people don't seem to agree with the idea that there needs to be a whole new government type to represent socialist governments. I haven't seen any mechanics proposed that would require that, whereas megacorps have distinct enough mechanics (like primarily operating within the territory of others) to deserve it.

2) That aside, I really have to disagree with some of the more friendly posters who've claimed that existing perks already align with having a socialist society as a gameplay element. Just having access to more consumer goods doesn't even *begin* to touch on the kind of changes we're talking about in such a society. Nor does it address the different ways that society may engage in the universe. For those with any experience with it, The Culture series by Iain M. Banks is a whole different beast from a culture with just "more resources". For one, resource consumption actually plumets to earth when you have a culture in which conspicuous consumption isn't a thing and basic needs are easily handled. Social distinction comes from participation in science, art, and good works in the universe. The kinds of things that the society is interested in spending resources on tends to end up being mega projects that can benefit huge amounts of the population and interacting with the outside galaxy.

Utopian Abundance grants unity (IIRC) from pops for this reason, to represent their activities outside of directly economical. Along with shared burden it renders the class system of empires nothing more than accounting with no differences between political power or material wealth due to one's profession.

I'd totally expect to spend ascension perks and several society techs on making this kind of thing happen (kind of like the Synthetic, Biological, and Psionic Ascension paths) as we're talking about pretty drastic social structure and philosophical changes but yeah, I'd really like to see some effort put to this end. Similarly, it'd be awesome to see ascension perks and society techs dedicated to a rampant capitalist machine that totally infiltrates every aspect of the society. Like a megacorp on absolute crack.

Seriously, beyond kicking the crap out of arrogant fallen empires, smacking down extra galactic invaders, and spreading the one true religion of cute psychic space squirrels, the major draw for me to Stellaris is the openness to explore virtually every kind of society we can dream of and match them up against the dreams of others in the galaxy...with the occasional need to purge heathen unbelievers...

An internal diplomacy rework that makes government types feel more distinct from each other and the variants due to ethics would help with this. Something that made fanatic egalitarian democracies feel more participatory on behalf of the population would certainly go some way to achieving mechanics for statelessness (alongside the abolition of class through shared burden/AU). That would certainly allow for anarchist Culture-esque play styles. But I don't think that needs a new government mechanic the same way megacorps do, which seems to be the only real issue under contention.

 

[henryk5pio]

What is this government civic? Was he somewhere explained, and I missed it?

 

[Lord Hoosier]

Who are you?

I'm just a forum member who made more than "PDS should/will do Mega Corporations expansion" threads and got told off about how they were already in the game. I even predicted the subsidiary system.

 

[TheRealRemus]

Paradox games are beginning to become better and better!
I Love the idea of spritualist capitalists!

 

[Calvax]

View attachment 413957
What is this government civic? Was he somewhere explained, and I missed it?

It was revealed a while ago. It’s a civic that makes consumer goods equal regardless of class, a sort of basic utopian abundance:

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1030739504011911168?s=20

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

It was revealed a while ago. It’s a civic that makes consumer goods equal regardless of class, a sort of basic utopian abundance:

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1030739504011911168?s=20

You quoted the wrong person.

 

[Calvax]

You quoted the wrong person.

Woops. Fixed, thanks!

View attachment 413957
What is this government civic? Was he somewhere explained, and I missed it?

Requoting for the notification. See above henryk5pio

 

[The Librarian]

I can't speak for everyone but that's not the impression I've got. Rather people don't seem to agree with the idea that there needs to be a whole new government type to represent socialist governments. I haven't seen any mechanics proposed that would require that, whereas megacorps have distinct enough mechanics (like primarily operating within the territory of others) to deserve it.



Utopian Abundance grants unity (IIRC) from pops for this reason, to represent their activities outside of directly economical. Along with shared burden it renders the class system of empires nothing more than accounting with no differences between political power or material wealth due to one's profession.



An internal diplomacy rework that makes government types feel more distinct from each other and the variants due to ethics would help with this. Something that made fanatic egalitarian democracies feel more participatory on behalf of the population would certainly go some way to achieving mechanics for statelessness (alongside the abolition of class through shared burden/AU). That would certainly allow for anarchist Culture-esque play styles. But I don't think that needs a new government mechanic the same way megacorps do, which seems to be the only real issue under contention.

I mean, I *could* be wrong on the reason for the downvotes but since it's not just me but even comments from people expressing even mild support for such a government/economic type in the game, it seems to go beyond just a disagreement about mechanics. But I'll hold that point in reserve for now.

Regarding the potential need for different mechanics, some sorts of socialist empires might be able to work within existing mechanics. If they're just peaceful "leave us alone, we don't care about the rest of the galaxy" space hippies. On the other hand, I'm saying that the sort of "power within another power" subversive empire type would fit well with some of the more aggressive "FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" versions of socialism. My original comment came about because the mechanics coming out of this megacorp DLC seem to be leaning in that direction and could be similarly applied to different empire type with some tweaks. Megacorps are willingly invited by the powers that be while...I don't know..."hyper-cooperatives" (or whatever other stupid name we want to use for it) can either be open in their interactions for governments friendly to them or subversive in the case of say a bunch of authoritarian slavers whom we're trying to get to rise up in revolution. That's a totally different mechanic.

Additionally, if we're talking about something like an anarcho-communist "empire" (or as close as we can model one given the compromises necessary to still have it be an empire that is playable by humans), we'd probably need some pretty different ways of going about things to represent the idea of a society united by purpose but without a formal state. And no, don't just tell me "there's no way to do it". This game has done an incredible job of modeling many different sorts of societies and adds more all the time. I'm pretty sure the smart people in this community could brainstorm a playable faction that satisfies many of the requirements to be reasonably called "anarchist" while being balanced and fun to play if we didn't just throw our hands up.

I'm not saying I want any of these to be overpowered or the "Da Bestest Faction EVAR!" I just want to be able to play out cool stuff and see cool stuff play out in the galaxies I play in. Anything ranging from an expansionistic anarcho-communist faction that subverts the whole galaxy to a biological ascendant that establishes a multi-system wide Eywa and turns all of their factories into just parts of a crazy interstellar ecosystem.

----

Unless it's been changed while I wasn't looking. Utopian Abundance doesn't grant unity at this time. If that's going to be changed or already has been and I missed it, that's cool but I don't think that's the case right now. I think it's just a ridonc happiness bonus. But even then, it also has a much higher consumer goods cost. And that makes sense perhaps...initially. Part of what I'm saying is that a socialist society changes the equation entirely. It's not just having *more* access to stuff. It's having a society that has changed to the point that it's discarded most value for stuff. Consumer goods cost should actually go *down* along with a bump to unity and science generation. But that kind of change should have utopian abundance as a required species right and then a civic cost or an ascension perk or something to represent the considerable societal change involved.

-----

I totally agree that we need some different mechanics for democracies to distinguish something closer to statelessness from a republic but what I'm saying is that, at a certain point, we're talking about more of a different *in kind*. In all forms of society with a state, we're still talking about a cadre of people who have the ability to enforce the will of whoever is running things but under a stateless entity, we're talking about no direct means of internal control whatsoever. Let's go back The Culture as an example. In the first book, The Culture was split between those who felt that Iridian problem *had* to be addressed and the peace faction that wanted nothing to do with that mess. The peace faction straight up secceeded for the duration of Iridian-Culture war and happily rejoined the rest of their home society once it was done. Let's even talk about factions. In any situation with a "state", various factions act like pressure groups. They try to push the state into making certain decisions that they like but, ultimately, the state retains the power to force the various factions into line or dismantle them outright. Under an anarchy, I wouldn't expect anything like that. Rather than influence, it's more like the citizens involved in various factions have direct control over the various means of production. You piss off the pacifist faction, they take their toys and go home. Cheese off the materialists and academies across the civilization shut down. You make the egalitarians mad, the whole empire grinds to a halt.

Like I said before, a civ similar to The Culture is a totally different beast.

 

[Calvax]

Regarding the potential need for different mechanics, some sorts of socialist empires might be able to work within existing mechanics.

This is a dev diary about Le Quin so really the focus of the conversation is the mechanics that we know are coming, rather than what we can do now. I agree that now there's barely any mechanics for role playing a socialist or anarchist empire. Primarily because class doesn't really exist in the current version so creating an empire all about the destruction of class (as it relates to economic and political power) isn't possible. But in Le Guin we are not only getting a class system we are getting civics and policies that fit that play style very well, without the need of a new government type.

If they're just peaceful "leave us alone, we don't care about the rest of the galaxy" space hippies. On the other hand, I'm saying that the sort of "power within another power" subversive empire type would fit well with some of the more aggressive "FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" versions of socialism. My original comment came about because the mechanics coming out of this megacorp DLC seem to be leaning in that direction and could be similarly applied to different empire type with some tweaks. Megacorps are willingly invited by the powers that be while...I don't know..."hyper-cooperatives" (or whatever other stupid name we want to use for it) can either be open in their interactions for governments friendly to them or subversive in the case of say a bunch of authoritarian slavers whom we're trying to get to rise up in revolution. That's a totally different mechanic.

I agree that political movements beyond one's own borders is a mechanic that would be great in the game. Hopefully it will come in a future diplomacy update because it's not just appropriate for those believing in the permanent revolution, it applies to any empire looking to influence the politics of other worlds. Again I don't really see that as needing it's own government type ala megacorps, but rather something that can fit within the fanatical egalitarian democracy with the right civics.

Additionally, if we're talking about something like an anarcho-communist "empire" (or as close as we can model one given the compromises necessary to still have it be an empire that is playable by humans), we'd probably need some pretty different ways of going about things to represent the idea of a society united by purpose but without a formal state. And no, don't just tell me "there's no way to do it". This game has done an incredible job of modeling many different sorts of societies and adds more all the time. I'm pretty sure the smart people in this community could brainstorm a playable faction that satisfies many of the requirements to be reasonably called "anarchist" while being balanced and fun to play if we didn't just throw our hands up.

If it's all the same to you I'd rather you didn't try to pre-empt comments when responding to me. There's little point arguing against a point that I may not make and beyond being presumptuous risks the discussion resolving into straw man arguments.

I'm not saying I want any of these to be overpowered or the "Da Bestest Faction EVAR!" I just want to be able to play out cool stuff and see cool stuff play out in the galaxies I play in. Anything ranging from an expansionistic anarcho-communist faction that subverts the whole galaxy to a biological ascendant that establishes a multi-system wide Eywa and turns all of their factories into just parts of a crazy interstellar ecosystem.

I don't think anyone is opposed to that, I just don't think it needs an expansion or new government type. These are things that can work within the current government and ethics systems through the new class/economic mechanics and a future diplo update.

Unless it's been changed while I wasn't looking. Utopian Abundance doesn't grant unity at this time. If that's going to be changed or already has been and I missed it, that's cool but I don't think that's the case right now. I think it's just a ridonc happiness bonus.

In Le Guin UA has been changed to give a happiness boost, to equalise the consumer goods consumption between class and causes unemployed pops to produce unity.

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1030751330065936384?s=20

But even then, it also has a much higher consumer goods cost. And that makes sense perhaps...initially. Part of what I'm saying is that a socialist society changes the equation entirely. It's not just having *more* access to stuff. It's having a society that has changed to the point that it's discarded most value for stuff. Consumer goods cost should actually go *down* along with a bump to unity and science generation. But that kind of change should have utopian abundance as a required species right and then a civic cost or an ascension perk or something to represent the considerable societal change involved.

I don't want to get too deep into a discussion about socialism but whether or not a socialist society will consume more or less is not inherent in the definition of what a socialist society is. In Le Guin UA only increases consumer goods consumption in the sense that all pops have equal access to consumer goods and thus total consumption is more than an empire with a deprived working class. If you wish to make an empire in Le Guin that doesn't consume as much resources you can do that by choosing the environmentalist civic alongside shared burden.

I totally agree that we need some different mechanics for democracies to distinguish something closer to statelessness from a republic but what I'm saying is that, at a certain point, we're talking about more of a different *in kind*. In all forms of society with a state, we're still talking about a cadre of people who have the ability to enforce the will of whoever is running things but under a stateless entity, we're talking about no direct means of internal control whatsoever. Let's go back The Culture as an example. In the first book, The Culture was split between those who felt that Iridian problem *had* to be addressed and the peace faction that wanted nothing to do with that mess. The peace faction straight up secceeded for the duration of Iridian-Culture war and happily rejoined the rest of their home society once it was done. Let's even talk about factions. In any situation with a "state", various factions act like pressure groups. They try to push the state into making certain decisions that they like but, ultimately, the state retains the power to force the various factions into line or dismantle them outright. Under an anarchy, I wouldn't expect anything like that. Rather than influence, it's more like the citizens involved in various factions have direct control over the various means of production. You piss off the pacifist faction, they take their toys and go home. Cheese off the materialists and academies across the civilization shut down. You make the egalitarians mad, the whole empire grinds to a halt.

Again this sounds like something for a future politics update. I can easily see a civic that grants significantly greater power to factions, akin to a highly powered council in CK2 that makes it impossible to do certain things without unanimous approval. This could include strikes from pops of certain factions or secession of sectors (with a modifier that means they are more likely to come back if policies are changed). If that sounds fun to you then great, it would need some good tools to make it not be a pain.

Regardless that sort of devolution civic fits fine within a fantic egalitarian democracy government type. Linking back to the original point that I believe people fervently disagree with: it doesn't need a new government. The mechanics needed to facilitate socialist style empires are either coming or likely to come in a form that is applicable to all empires (like influencing external politics, revamping the relationship between player and factions etc). Personally my biggest concern about the idea that Culture-esque empires need their own government is that it overlooks the fact that the whole point of stellaris's customisation options are that you should be able to make a huge range of government types from combining the different options available. Not every government needs its own explicit government option. Megacorps are justifiable because they do play very differently to other empires, having a huge economic non-state component. A Culture Empire not so much.

 

[adil3tr]

We’re getting shared burden, the economy rework brings class considerations into the game and utopian abundance is a much better mechanic for it. As much as I’ve always wanted to make a fully automated queer space communist empire in stellaris I don’t think it needs its own DLC or government type. Megacorps are functionally very different, being partially non-state actors (given the operation of branch offices throughout the galaxy) and are a distinct enough trope that they deserve their own government type.

A future update to diplomacy with deeper internal politics and federations would be a much better option for fleshing out space communism in the game.

I agree that for it to come into its own it’ll need a politics rework too, but I just think utopian abundance is not the same as communism in game.

 

[Calvax]

I agree that for it to come into its own it’ll need a politics rework too, but I just think utopian abundance is not the same as communism in game.

On its own I agree. Looking at how the ideals of communism can be modelled in Le Quin:

Stateless: Possible in RP but weak mechanically. You can play fanatic egalitarian and role play that you're empire is a voluntary federation of assemblies (with your leader being a chair) but it doesn't really play like that outside of RP. That would need an expansion of internal politics which I could see happening in future with the factions. Internal politics development would certainly lend itself to external diplomacy, especially in the form of supporting the factions of other empires.

Classless: Coming in Le Quin in the form of shared burden and UA, the latter of which is more of a United Federation of Planets approach to no class. In both of these the political power and wealth of classes is equal, regardless of profession. This mechanically will be interesting given that pops will require equal consideration for happiness and stability, rather than the disproportionate power of middle and upper classes that other empires will contend with.

Moneyless: Stellaris doesn't model a consumer economy, nor does it really need to, so other than some minor adjustments to fluff that can easily be RP'd and doesn't need any new or changed mechanics.

 

[The Librarian]

This is a dev diary about Le Quin so really the focus of the conversation is the mechanics that we know are coming, rather than what we can do now. I agree that now there's barely any mechanics for role playing a socialist or anarchist empire. Primarily because class doesn't really exist in the current version so creating an empire all about the destruction of class (as it relates to economic and political power) isn't possible. But in Le Guin we are not only getting a class system we are getting civics and policies that fit that play style very well, without the need of a new government type.



I agree that political movements beyond one's own borders is a mechanic that would be great in the game. Hopefully it will come in a future diplomacy update because it's not just appropriate for those believing in the permanent revolution, it applies to any empire looking to influence the politics of other worlds. Again I don't really see that as needing it's own government type ala megacorps, but rather something that can fit within the fanatical egalitarian democracy with the right civics.



If it's all the same to you I'd rather you didn't try to pre-empt comments when responding to me. There's little point arguing against a point that I may not make and beyond being presumptuous risks the discussion resolving into straw man arguments.



I don't think anyone is opposed to that, I just don't think it needs an expansion or new government type. These are things that can work within the current government and ethics systems through the new class/economic mechanics and a future diplo update.



In Le Guin UA has been changed to give a happiness boost, to equalise the consumer goods consumption between class and causes unemployed pops to produce unity.

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1030751330065936384?s=20



I don't want to get too deep into a discussion about socialism but whether or not a socialist society will consume more or less is not inherent in the definition of what a socialist society is. In Le Guin UA only increases consumer goods consumption in the sense that all pops have equal access to consumer goods and thus total consumption is more than an empire with a deprived working class. If you wish to make an empire in Le Guin that doesn't consume as much resources you can do that by choosing the environmentalist civic alongside shared burden.



Again this sounds like something for a future politics update. I can easily see a civic that grants significantly greater power to factions, akin to a highly powered council in CK2 that makes it impossible to do certain things without unanimous approval. This could include strikes from pops of certain factions or secession of sectors (with a modifier that means they are more likely to come back if policies are changed). If that sounds fun to you then great, it would need some good tools to make it not be a pain.

Regardless that sort of devolution civic fits fine within a fantic egalitarian democracy government type. Linking back to the original point that I believe people fervently disagree with: it doesn't need a new government. The mechanics needed to facilitate socialist style empires are either coming or likely to come in a form that is applicable to all empires (like influencing external politics, revamping the relationship between player and factions etc). Personally my biggest concern about the idea that Culture-esque empires need their own government is that it overlooks the fact that the whole point of stellaris's customisation options are that you should be able to make a huge range of government types from combining the different options available. Not every government needs its own explicit government option. Megacorps are justifiable because they do play very differently to other empires, having a huge economic non-state component. A Culture Empire not so much.

The conversation is about Le Guin, but, as with all the Dev Diaries, people in the community comment on things they're excited about or would love to see. In general, my original comments were totally in line with conversation that normally happens. We're just in a little deeper now because there was some contention.

I guess, part of the reason I feel like it should go in its own government type is gi

To be clear, the comments I make are as much directed at you as other people reading the thread. I don't remember if you specificaly said that it's something that couldn't be done but other people *did* and I was replying to that. I do apologize if that came off as hostile to you; it wasn't.

That's cool to see about the Le Guin update changes to UA. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

Regarding a socialist society consuming more or less, I maintain that a fully socialist society *would* consume less as far as the individual consumption rates of people within the society go but that's a long theory debate. But, more to the point of game mechanics, I'm not saying that it should be an inherent part of having a vaguely socialist society. I'm saying that it should manifest as a deliberate social change that perhaps costs an ascension perk. A large part of this conversation has centered on whether things in the game are fine as they are for what I'd like to say and my primary point is that they aren't. They're a damn sight better than appears in most games. No doubt about that. Paradox has been amazing in that. I'm saying we could take it further to make it truly unique.

Finally, regarding the last point, I think there are *some* things that could fit within existing mechanics with tweaks but some things strike me as needing a fundamental difference. Interestingly, in all this discussion, my original interest was in how the mechanics coming out with the megacorp update could be adapted to fit with a society with a socialist bent. Just taking the relative "non-rootedness" that megacorps come with and extending that out in a somewhat different direction. Where we started really talking about producing vastly different mechanics where when we started talking about anarchies specifically.

 

[Calvax]

The conversation is about Le Guin, but, as with all the Dev Diaries, people in the community comment on things they're excited about or would love to see. In general, my original comments were totally in line with conversation that normally happens. We're just in a little deeper now because there was some contention.

Typical confusing nature of threads. The recent discussion I've seen and taken part in has been whether or not megacorps mean that a new socialist style government type is needed, which as I've said I don't think is justified compared to the new features we're getting for democratic nations and the things that could be further expanded upon in a politics/diplo update.

I guess, part of the reason I feel like it should go in its own government type is gi

gi? Is that a typo or did the sentence get cut off? Or does it stand for something I'm missing?

To be clear, the comments I make are as much directed at you as other people reading the thread. I don't remember if you specificaly said that it's something that couldn't be done but other people *did* and I was replying to that. I do apologize if that came off as hostile to you; it wasn't.

I wasn't entirely sure given that you were quoting me directly, apology accepted

Regarding a socialist society consuming more or less, I maintain that a fully socialist society *would* consume less as far as the individual consumption rates of people within the society go but that's a long theory debate. But, more to the point of game mechanics, I'm not saying that it should be an inherent part of having a vaguely socialist society. I'm saying that it should manifest as a deliberate social change that perhaps costs an ascension perk.

I disagree that it necessarily would but regardless stellaris is a game that tries to fit in as many nations and tropes from science fiction as possible. Socialist empires having lower consumer goods is a needless restriction. As I said you can already adjust how many consumer goods your pops consume through the environmentalist civic, and also through the conservationist trait. So if you want to make your empire consume less consumer goods either pick those from the start or reform your government during the game for the former and genemod for the latter.

A large part of this conversation has centered on whether things in the game are fine as they are for what I'd like to say and my primary point is that they aren't. They're a damn sight better than appears in most games. No doubt about that. Paradox has been amazing in that. I'm saying we could take it further to make it truly unique.

Finally, regarding the last point, I think there are *some* things that could fit within existing mechanics with tweaks but some things strike me as needing a fundamental difference. Interestingly, in all this discussion, my original interest was in how the mechanics coming out with the megacorp update could be adapted to fit with a society with a socialist bent. Just taking the relative "non-rootedness" that megacorps come with and extending that out in a somewhat different direction. Where we started really talking about producing vastly different mechanics where when we started talking about anarchies specifically.

There are certainly many new mechanics that would be good to see, such as a diplomacy update that fleshes out the role/power of factions within empires as well as relationships with factions in other empires, and finally relationships between factions. Things like having more complex interactions with your factions, supporting factions in other empires to foster desirable change or having like-minded factions in multiple empires band together (potentially causing a newly formed state from multiple seceding territories) would all be good. I don't think any of that requires a new government type because those mechanics would easily fit in with any current (or Le Quin) government type. If things like this were made purely for a single government type then it takes away from the modularity/customizability of the empires a player can play, as well as robbing those other government types of mechanics that easily fit with them also.

 

[henryk5pio]

Woops. Fixed, thanks!



Requoting for the notification. See above henryk5pio

Thank you. A bit strange this civic, because it only applies to Consumer Goods Use, because it has always been irrelevant. It was enough to have a strong economy, and consumer good use could not be worried.

 

[Calvax]

Thank you. A bit strange this civic, because it only applies to Consumer Goods Use, because it has always been irrelevant. It was enough to have a strong economy, and consumer good use could not be worried.

Seems like you might not be up-to-date on how consumer goods are being changed in Le Quin. They are now a separate resource that must be produced and in most empires pops of higher stratas (class) consume more. In addition there is a new mechanic of political power, pops of higher class will have more political power than lower class meaning that their happiness will be disproportionately accounted for with the average happiness of the planet. In authoritarian empires with authoritarian civics/living standards this will be more unequal, in egalitarian empires with egalitarian civics/living standards (like shared burden and utopian abundance) this will be more equal and potentially totally equal.

 

[henryk5pio]

Seems like you might not be up-to-date on how consumer goods are being changed in Le Quin. They are now a separate resource that must be produced and in most empires pops of higher stratas (class) consume more. In addition there is a new mechanic of political power, pops of higher class will have more political power than lower class meaning that their happiness will be disproportionately accounted for with the average happiness of the planet. In authoritarian empires with authoritarian civics/living standards this will be more unequal, in egalitarian empires with egalitarian civics/living standards (like shared burden and utopian abundance) this will be more equal and potentially totally equal.

And what are the pros or cons that can come out of it?

 

[The Librarian]

Typical confusing nature of threads. The recent discussion I've seen and taken part in has been whether or not megacorps mean that a new socialist style government type is needed, which as I've said I don't think is justified compared to the new features we're getting for democratic nations and the things that could be further expanded upon in a politics/diplo update.



gi? Is that a typo or did the sentence get cut off? Or does it stand for something I'm missing?



I wasn't entirely sure given that you were quoting me directly, apology accepted



I disagree that it necessarily would but regardless stellaris is a game that tries to fit in as many nations and tropes from science fiction as possible. Socialist empires having lower consumer goods is a needless restriction. As I said you can already adjust how many consumer goods your pops consume through the environmentalist civic, and also through the conservationist trait. So if you want to make your empire consume less consumer goods either pick those from the start or reform your government during the game for the former and genemod for the latter.



There are certainly many new mechanics that would be good to see, such as a diplomacy update that fleshes out the role/power of factions within empires as well as relationships with factions in other empires, and finally relationships between factions. Things like having more complex interactions with your factions, supporting factions in other empires to foster desirable change or having like-minded factions in multiple empires band together (potentially causing a newly formed state from multiple seceding territories) would all be good. I don't think any of that requires a new government type because those mechanics would easily fit in with any current (or Le Quin) government type. If things like this were made purely for a single government type then it takes away from the modularity/customizability of the empires a player can play, as well as robbing those other government types of mechanics that easily fit with them also.

Yeah, I lost that part of the point somehow but I'm not that worried about it.

Okay, so my point here isn't about just the consumption of goods alone. My point is about how the consuption of goods is tied to broad social behavior. For the sake of present argument, humor me in my saying that a socialist society would see lower personal consumption rates. What I'm getting at isn't just that people *are* consuming less but *why* they're consuming less. So one form a socialist society *could* take is one in which the people of the society decide that the only materials they personally need is enough to keep themselves alive and in decent creature comfort. Beyond that and a few personal effects, the idea of consumption of goods being in one way or another a maker of status is totally absurd. Since status distinction exists on a completely different axis, the population spends the majority of its energy on "bettering themselves", a la Star Trek. What I'm saying is that this manifests as a society in which total consummption *of consumer goods* drops, and science and unity production jump. So something similar to what the psionic trait does to a poplulation.

A way of thinking about at least THIS thing that I'm talking about is that it's very much like the psionic, biological, and synthetic ascenion paths. Those paths are sort of ontological in nature. They deal with alterations to the nature of being and radically changing the society that way. What's being discussed here is changes to the nature of *relating*. The previous ascension paths are physical. The ones we're talking about here are social but perhaps no less difficult.

Regarding the last point, I will yield that one to you and I think I understand your position better. My contention regarding anarchies as a government type was assuming most other mechanics remaining the same and this being a specific thing that certain kinds of anarchies did. If we're making this a general case issue for all empires, that'd be cool with an obvious intensification of the mechanic for fanatically egalitarian empires but I was assuming that dealing with that much internal politicking was something only a minority of people who play the game would be interested in toying with. If that's something a lot of people would like, I'm totally good with that.

 

[Calvax]

And what are the pros or cons that can come out of it?

Consumer goods being a raw produce increases the complexity of strategy when it comes to economic decisions and opens up more interesting avenues for trade. It also allows for greater depth within different empires with authoritarians now having a mechanical reason to focus primarily on the needs/wants of the elite whereas egalitarians ignore the masses at their own peril.

Yeah, I lost that part of the point somehow but I'm not that worried about it.

Okay, so my point here isn't about just the consumption of goods alone. My point is about how the consuption of goods is tied to broad social behavior. For the sake of present argument, humor me in my saying that a socialist society would see lower personal consumption rates. What I'm getting at isn't just that people *are* consuming less but *why* they're consuming less. So one form a socialist society *could* take is one in which the people of the society decide that the only materials they personally need is enough to keep themselves alive and in decent creature comfort. Beyond that and a few personal effects, the idea of consumption of goods being in one way or another a maker of status is totally absurd. Since status distinction exists on a completely different axis, the population spends the majority of its energy on "bettering themselves", a la Star Trek. What I'm saying is that this manifests as a society in which total consummption *of consumer goods* drops, and science and unity production jump. So something similar to what the psionic trait does to a poplulation.

A way of thinking about at least THIS thing that I'm talking about is that it's very much like the psionic, biological, and synthetic ascenion paths. Those paths are sort of ontological in nature. They deal with alterations to the nature of being and radically changing the society that way. What's being discussed here is changes to the nature of *relating*. The previous ascension paths are physical. The ones we're talking about here are social but perhaps no less difficult.

I agree that in a society where the concept of wealth is drastically different goods as a status symbol won't be anything like that of today. I don't see this as needing anything like an ascension perk. Nuanced cultural ideals like this are best left to civics, traits and RP. If you want a society where the consumption of goods is no longer considered a desirable end goal then pick the conservationist civic. I'm not sure what more you really want than an option to customise your empire so that consumer good consumption per pop is lower?

Regarding the last point, I will yield that one to you and I think I understand your position better. My contention regarding anarchies as a government type was assuming most other mechanics remaining the same and this being a specific thing that certain kinds of anarchies did. If we're making this a general case issue for all empires, that'd be cool with an obvious intensification of the mechanic for fanatically egalitarian empires but I was assuming that dealing with that much internal politicking was something only a minority of people who play the game would be interested in toying with. If that's something a lot of people would like, I'm totally good with that.

It depends on what you mean by how much internal politicking. I would be incredibly surprised if the majority of stellaris players (or 4x players in general) would enjoy a system where entire segments of their empire will frequently refuse to work or temporarily break off. However I do think most would enjoy richer political play with factions, leaders and other population mechanics having more detail and consequence. As part of that it's possible that an extreme where factions representing large portions of the population (i.e. not just elites) are very powerful and gameplay is mostly around managing that rather than war or commerce. But I don't see that it needs a new government type.