Stellaris Dev Diary #158 - Federation rework

[Confernal]

I think the controversy surrounding certain federation limitations could be fixed if instead of the developers keeping them as ethic centric, to make them more "the means to a ends" centric.

This leads of course to silly scenarios like Spiritualists making philosophy and metaphysics Research Cooperatives, and of course Pacifists forming Martial Alliances:

But that is the real absurdity of philosophical and politcal differences in real life.

If anything should be a restriction to what federations can form, it should be the policys held by the would be federators(and maybe government types) with ethic differences and policy changes benefiting or hindering Cohesion.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

I think the controversy surrounding certain federation limitations could be fixed if instead of the developers keeping them as ethic centric, to make them more "the means to a ends" centric.

This leads of course to silly scenarios like Spiritualists making philosophy and metaphysics Research Cooperatives, and of course Pacifists forming Martial Alliances:
View attachment 523584
But that is the real absurdity of philosophical and politcal differences in real life.

If anything should be a restriction to what federations can form, it should be the policys held by the would be federators(and maybe government types) with ethic differences and policy changes benefiting or hindering Cohesion.

I mean, on that note, you could make it based on finishing/starting a tradition tree. After all ... we have domination, supremacy, discovery, prosperity, and diplomacy.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I think the controversy surrounding certain federation limitations could be fixed if instead of the developers keeping them as ethic centric, to make them more "the means to a ends" centric.

I really don't think that would make for better gameplay.

Ethics should matter. They should impact your play. The governing Ethics you chose should absolutely impact what options are available to you.

 

[Dedonus]

This looks like a good step in the right direction. I agree with others that there needs to be more inter- and intra-federation interactions. But hopefully future Dev Diaries will show that the Devs are taking care of these aspects, too.

 

[Confernal]

I mean, on that note, you could make it based on finishing/starting a tradition tree. After all ... we have domination, supremacy, discovery, prosperity, and diplomacy.

They should absolutely play a role in this. I'd say Federation members specifically pursuing those specific traditions get increased cohesion in relation to the appropriate Federation they are.

I really don't think that would make for better gameplay.

Ethics should matter. They should impact your play. The governing Ethics you chose should absolutely impact what options are available to you.

Ethics absolutely should play a impact, and would. If a Spiritualist Research Cooperative had policy's banning robotics research, and changed those individually or Federation wise to allow it, then they should take hefty cohesion penalties, and potentially dissolve or booted from the federation. Same if Pacifists changed their War policy's or used a federation fleet offensively.

As these Federations are phrased right now, why would a Pacifist civilization ever have any fleets or a military at all, or a Spiritualist empire even make it to space, if they were completely diametrically opposed to research and development of technology or martial organization?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

As these are phrased right now, why would a Pacifist civilization ever have any fleets at all, or a Spiritualist empire even make it to space if they were completely diametrically opposed to research and development of technology?

...you fundamentally misunderstand what the text of Pacifist or Spiritualist entail if that's your question, I'm afraid.

 

[Confernal]

...you fundamentally misunderstand what the text of Pacifist or Spiritualist entail if that's your question, I'm afraid.

I suppose the core problem is how a Politcal view is defined, and there's way too much interpretation in that for everyone to be happy.

I'd just like to have a very tall federation of super tech psychic Spirtualists, or would be Pacifist galactic Police Force.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I'd just like to have a very tall federation of super tech psychic Spirtualists, or would be Pacifist galactic Police Force.

Those are both possible. You just have to accomplish it by other ways than the Ethic-locked variants.

 

[sortulv]

I'd just like to have a very tall federation of super tech psychic Spirtualists, or would be Pacifist galactic Police Force.

Then make friends with someone that has the philosophical background to implement this (let them suggest the federation), or make the federation and move it by steps to what you want.

 

[smile444]

Hope not. From what I hear, those are never, ever implemented in a fun way.

it worked in CK2

 

[safe-keeper]

Actually I think a subterfuge/expansion update would be nice! It just needs fine balancing.

It's not about balancing, it's about it actually being fun and working well with the rest of Stellaris' gameplay.

it worked in CK2

My experience is that it works in games where it can be implemented as part of the core gameplay. CK2 is built around characters and character intrigue, so assassinations for example is just another thing your character can do. Dominions, for another example, is built around moving characters, from mages to scouts to commanders around, and so giving some of those characters the ability to try to enter enemy lands undetected, and some of those in turn the ability to preach your religion, incite unrest, or assassinate enemy commanders, fits neatly into existing gameplay.

A good example from Stellaris would be how you can use your science ships to salvage and reverse-engineer the technology of enemy ships. This fits both the Stellaris gameplay model, as science ship missions is already a thing, and the sci-fi setting, as reverse-engineering superior alien tech is an established sci-fi theme/trope.

 

[Foefaller]

it worked in CK2

Now; the original version was awful.

It also works because counterespionage is simple (find the candidate with the highest intrigue who likes you and make them your spymaster) also rewarding (imprison your most dangerous vassal for trying to murder his brother) and both it and regular espionage could be affected by something other than high intrigue (Master Suductress Matilda Di Canosa has no problems finding men to join her plots. Those who plot against her, on the other hand...)

And since CKII is heavily character-driven, you can't really translate how it's done directly into Stellaris. Even something as "simple" as making counterespionage simple, because there is still the challenge of finding a good, trustworthy spymaster that you need to succeed with first, which is required to make sure plot detection isn't always a non-issue (and therefore espionage essentially impossible)

 

[smile444]

It's not about balancing, it's about it actually being fun and working well with the rest of Stellaris' gameplay.

My experience is that it works in games where it can be implemented as part of the core gameplay. CK2 is built around characters and character intrigue, so assassinations for example is just another thing your character can do. Dominions, for another example, is built around moving characters, from mages to scouts to commanders around, and so giving some of those characters the ability to try to enter enemy lands undetected, and some of those in turn the ability to preach your religion, incite unrest, or assassinate enemy commanders, fits neatly into existing gameplay.

A good example from Stellaris would be how you can use your science ships to salvage and reverse-engineer the technology of enemy ships. This fits both the Stellaris gameplay model, as science ship missions is already a thing, and the sci-fi setting, as reverse-engineering superior alien tech is an established sci-fi theme/trope.

shapeshifting spies, sentient i.a supervirus hacking, and psychics creating cults are all sci-fi tropes too. It could do a lot of fun stuff like looking at an ennemy fleet composition and position, incite crime and taking advantage of it especially in slaving empire populations, push vassals to rebel or alliance/federation members to rebel/exit the alliance. It would be a place where psionic species have an advantage

it could be a case of some empire type being better at espionnage/counterespionnage as others

 

[Losttruppen]

Hopefully some of these changes can be scaled down for future faction and intra-empire changes. I'm still not sure what this DLC really offers for genocidal and xenophobic empires unless this makes the rest of the galaxy more of a challenge, but that would require an AI overhaul I don't feel is coming soon.

It would be really nice if envoys were leaders with traits and levels instead of the 'positive rivalries' they were in early Stellaris.

 

[DrNukeLear]

Hopefully some of these changes can be scaled down for future faction and intra-empire changes.

It would be really nice if envoys were leaders with traits and levels instead of the 'positive rivalries' they were in early Stellaris.

It’s going to be interesting to see how they’re implemented. At the moment they seem to be a resource similar to minor artefacts in the way they’re just a number to be spent.

 

[The Founder]

I believe Monturiol is saying that the three proposed tangible benefits aren't tangible at all, since they're built upon game mechanics that are inherently flawed: The end result is that Stellaris gameplay with Federations DLC will probably remain flawed.

Wich is a nice way of saying "No, they do not count".

Wich System works and does not work is entirely subjective. So this comes down to a "convince me" argument. And that would be a troll argument.

 

[The Founder]

I think the controversy surrounding certain federation limitations could be fixed if instead of the developers keeping them as ethic centric, to make them more "the means to a ends" centric.

The only limitation right now is who can propose them.

Pacifists in your example could easily pick any of the other Federation types, and check the "Mutual Defense Pact" part (if that even becomes an optional part!)
Pacifist AI are also not agressive Liberators, wich seems to be what you are picturing.

 

[Zarpaulus]

You know, it never made sense to me for the Xenophobic Great Khan's successor to restructure the empire into an Egalitarian democracy just because they had a lot of satrapies.

Hegemony makes a lot more sense.

 

[Methone]

You know, it never made sense to me for the Xenophobic Great Khan's successor to restructure the empire into an Egalitarian democracy just because they had a lot of satrapies

I mean, the Khan themselves aren't really xenophobic. The Marauders they come from invariably are, but the Khan goes on about building an egalitarian society where all species - even machine intelligences! - get along.

The Marauder Horde not losing Xenophobia is probably just an oversight on Paradox's part, because the Khan behaves more as an Honorbound Warrior than anything else.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

I mean, the Khan themselves aren't really xenophobic. The Marauders they come from invariably are, but the Khan goes on about building an egalitarian society where all species - even machine intelligences! - get along.

The Marauder Horde not losing Xenophobia is probably just an oversight on Paradox's part, because the Khan behaves more as an Honorbound Warrior than anything else.

Which pleases me, as this is a great tribute to the Mongol Empire, which is clearly what this event is meant to emulate. Ofc, this doesn’t preclude a hegemony, but I think the khan should be fan mil/egal tbh. The strong rule, the weak pay tribute, but also meritocratic advancement.