Stellaris Dev Diary #158 - Federation rework

[RabbaDooDabba]

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 always chalked it up to the winning Diadochus interpreting the Kahn's will differently than the others.

 

[The Founder]

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.

The Hegemony is now certainly an option.

As for the Historical Comparision: I do not think it works.
If I had to make it, I would say Dshingis turned a Egaltiaran/Oligarchic voting System into something more resembling a Autocracy.
Back in those days, slavery was not really a Ethics Restricted Policy.

I always chalked it up to the winning Diadochus interpreting the Kahn's will differently than the others.

A Diadoch actually has nothing to do with the Khans. It is a Alexander the Great thing.

The Generals that split up his empire after he died? Those were the Diadochi. It is a Greek Term for "Sucessor" so it works on the meaning. But considering the title "Khan" is a not-greek thing, it is kinda of a break.

 

[RabbaDooDabba]

A Diadoch actually has nothing to do with the Khans. It is a Alexander the Great thing.

Is the heir to an imperial successor Kahnate not called Diadochus ? I was strictly speaking stellaris terms... I was sure the fluff labled the successors to the kahn as diadochi somewhere...
Well, whatever the case, I think of it as a different interpretation of the Great Kahn's Will of one of the successors.

 

[Methone]

Is the heir to an imperial successor Kahnate not called Diadochus ? I was strictly speaking stellaris terms... I was sure the fluff labled the successors to the kahn as diadochi somewhere...
Well, whatever the case, I think of it as a different interpretation of the Great Kahn's Will of one of the successors.

In the event describing the Khan's breakup, their head generals are described as the Diadochi.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

The Hegemony is now certainly an option.

As for the Historical Comparision: I do not think it works.
If I had to make it, I would say Dshingis turned a Egaltiaran/Oligarchic voting System into something more resembling a Autocracy.
Back in those days, slavery was not really a Ethics Restricted Policy.

Autocracy? Sort of, it’s something in between oligarchic and dictatorship in stellaris. Kind of like a nomadic HRE or tanistry. Thing is, the empire was known for killing a lot of aristocrats and filling those positions with capable and loyal replacements, hence why I considered meritocracy. Still, you could make a good argument for a hegemony, at least as a possible outcome.

Xenophobe definitely doesn’t apply, ditto for any Alexander the Great references.

A Diadoch actually has nothing to do with the Khans. It is a Alexander the Great thing.

The Generals that split up his empire after he died? Those were the Diadochi. It is a Greek Term for "Sucessor" so it works on the meaning. But considering the title "Khan" is a not-greek thing, it is kinda of a break.

It is an Alexander the Great thing, but it makes sense with this outcome, Temujin’s empire didn’t break up initially, but was subdivided to some degree. This outcome doesn’t match, so they reference another great conquerer.

 

[Zarpaulus]

It is an Alexander the Great thing, but it makes sense with this outcome, Temujin’s empire didn’t break up initially, but was subdivided to some degree. This outcome doesn’t match, so they reference another great conquerer.

The Great Khan is kind of a mix of Temujin Khan and Alexander III, the Marauders could honestly represent either Mongol tribes or Greek city-states (habitats), especially given Sparta.

 

[The Founder]

Is the heir to an imperial successor Kahnate not called Diadochus ? I was strictly speaking stellaris terms... I was sure the fluff labled the successors to the kahn as diadochi somewhere...
Well, whatever the case, I think of it as a different interpretation of the Great Kahn's Will of one of the successors.

In the event describing the Khan's breakup, their head generals are described as the Diadochi.

Wich is why I pointed out, that the term is off. It as it is a Greek thing/term, not a Mogol thing/term.

The Great Khan is kind of a mix of Temujin Khan and Alexander III, the Marauders could honestly represent either Mongol tribes or Greek city-states (habitats), especially given Sparta.

Conquers are lot - using a incredibly powerfull army out of nowhere - but dies before he can administer it?
I never noticed it before, but from that point of View, the Khan does sound a lot like Alexander the Great.

Autocracy? Sort of, it’s something in between oligarchic and dictatorship in stellaris. Kind of like a nomadic HRE or tanistry. Thing is, the empire was known for killing a lot of aristocrats and filling those positions with capable and loyal replacements, hence why I considered meritocracy.

The Aristrocratic System sounded around as Democratic as the Polish Elective Monarchy - wich actually had the largest Voting population until a proper Democracy came around.
Meanwhile Genghis aimed at making a Empire. Those can only be made via Autocracy.

And with "Capable and Loyal", there is a question how much weight is on either side. Capability without Loyalty breeds Ambition for Independance and/or your throne. Considering that it fell about as quickly as it rose, they might have had to much capability and too little loyalty.

I am basing my idea most on that Extra History series. They do mention some of the very quiestionable actions - down to borderline genocidal ones - he did:

While he abolished that Aristracy, he replaced it with a very centralized System

 

[Pointyearedgit]

I am basing my idea most on that Extra History series. They do mention some of the very quiestionable actions - down to borderline genocidal ones - he did:

While he abolished that Aristracy, he replaced it with a very centralized System

Yea, I’m not the greatest fan of those series. When they’ve covered topics I’m more familiar with, I’ve been pretty unsatisfied on the “lies” episode, not to mention the regular ones. Not to say that everything is inaccurate, but they tend to fall for common misconceptions and they should know better if they are doing extensive research. I suppose it makes the episodes more dramatic.

Centralization of the system is true, however, khans were elected through support of the various tribes. It’s worth noting that one can have a decentralized autocracy (ie medieval European feudal system) and highly centralized democratic and oligarchic systems (federal US govt compared to Articles of Confederation). Ostensibly it should be the dictatorial system, but in practice there were long serving regents and some emergency elections ... so something in between is what I felt fit. You can have strong centralization of power with a meritocracy, however, Subutai was essentially a commoner and grew into a more than capable General. Leaders of Arbans (10 men) were voted on by the men. Etc Etc

In terms of brutality, absolutely, but it’s more akin to the enhanced bombardment stance than purging. More “Murum Aries Attigit” than “Lebensraum”. Militarist (in its stellaris implementation) fits better here imo. Both the Mongols and their opponents had a vested interest in promoting this view, so reports need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Edit: Really autocorrect, “Miriam Aries Attigit”?

 

[The Founder]

Centralization of the system is true, however, khans were elected through support of the various tribes.

The Original Khan when Genghis rose to power? Yes, he was elected
The following ones? Inherited Title. With Sucession wars and all. It is about as Elected as the "Rose Wars" were.

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

One thing I hope they fix is where you can get your federation partners to get along! Slowly of course! Or if you want a powerful friend to join your federation but those in the federation hate this potential member, you have to have a way to get the others to like your friend!

 

[skytta]

I hope that there will be a federation law that depends on federation centralization that determins if the members are only banding together when there is an attack on one member. But are unable coordinate a united front when it comes to attacking an other empire. The exeption would be an invitation to a war of course.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

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.

Gonna cut in here and say that meritocratic advancement doesn't necessarily equate to an egalitarian society.

Egalitarian wants to say that all citizens are equal, or that if they aren't then the government should endeavor to make them equal. Narrowing wage gaps, closing the divide between rich and poor, abolishing social strata, giving benefits to help the poor, disabled, and otherwise disadvantaged, and so on. Eliminating differences, to put it simply.

Meritocracies work just fine in that environment, but in their original form a "pure" meritocracy would argue that economic goods and political power should be assigned to people by demonstrated ability and talent rather than by the social station they were born into. For example, a non-egalitarian meritocracy would argue that the only citizens who ought to be allowed to vote should be those ones who can demonstrate that they're able to cast informed, conscientious votes. Or, in the interest of something resembling fairness, they'd just give extra bonus votes to citizens who actively participate in electoral debates. Meaning, even if anyone can earn the position, there is still a category of people with more voting rights than others.

An authoritarian meritocracy would simply have the state assigning jobs to its citizens based on their demonstrated aptitude. (Or, more often, their demonstrated aptitude according to a stack of tests that overlook important things like creativity, mental fluidity, and social competence.)

An aristocratic meritocracy would grant noble rights and privileges to citizens who meet certain qualifications, such as making significant contributions to a scientific or medical field, or for establishing and running a successful charity organization. This is extremely not egalitarian, what with the existence of a privileged social class above commoner, but it's a thing a non-egalitarian meritocracy could do and justify.

Slavery can be justified in a meritocracy the same way nobility can, that being as long as the individual in question "earned" that status, and can later move to another social station through demonstrated ability or aptitude. Prisoners with jobs, basically, or indentured servitude, or any form of compulsory labor insofar as the individual isn't born into it and can (theoretically) transition out of it.

... just a pet peeve of mine. In the real world, Egalitarian =/= Meritocracy and vice versa, and ironically the original use of the word could be more accurately described as a non-hereditary version of otherwise standard authoritarianism. Genghis Khan wasn't necessarily creating an egalitarian society, but he was creating a meritocratic one.

 

[The Founder]

I hope that there will be a federation law that depends on federation centralization that determins if the members are only banding together when there is an attack on one member. But are unable coordinate a united front when it comes to attacking an other empire. The exeption would be an invitation to a war of course.

This could be a 4th option for War Declaration Law: "No Shared Offensive wars".
If they are Invite only, nobody will be dragged into a war they do not want.

However this could cause serious issues with the Federation fleet. Like it currently being in teh hand of a non-fed member. Or changing hands during the war.
Or issues with teh other side not being able to reach due to a "stayed neutral" Fed Member blocking the way.
Or the Attacked one being most interested in getting their claims against a "stayed neutral" one.
So I doubt that will be a thing. Maybe invites in addition the all Fed Members. But not only some Fed members.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

However this could cause serious issues with the Federation fleet. Like it currently being in teh hand of a non-fed member. Or changing hands during the war.
Or issues with teh other side not being able to reach due to a "stayed neutral" Fed Member blocking the way.
Or the Attacked one being most interested in getting their claims against a "stayed neutral" one

I don't see where the issue is with getting into the hands of a non-fed member, current federations just hand the fleet to the president of the federation, or it disappears if the federation disappears (I don't like this aspect). If it changes hands during the war, I'd consider that WAD, deal with it (like losing your top title in CK2).

Neutral countries blocking the way is not new and can be accomplished with guarantees even in the current system.

The "attacked one" can just declare an offensive war on that member, this has happened a lot in human history, if the attacked country wants it bad enough, it's on them to declare an offensive war.

 

[skytta]

However this could cause serious issues with the Federation fleet. Like it currently being in teh hand of a non-fed member. Or changing hands during the war.
Or issues with teh other side not being able to reach due to a "stayed neutral" Fed Member blocking the way.
Or the Attacked one being most interested in getting their claims against a "stayed neutral" one.
So I doubt that will be a thing. Maybe invites in addition the all Fed Members. But not only some Fed members.

I don't see a Problem, there is a solution already in the game. During a war all possitons are fixed and I presume that this will also be the case with Federation laws. So if the Fed President is involved he get's to use the fleet. If they want to change the federation fleet Management so that different members can be assigned to have a part of it. Then it would also be fixed during a war but the devs didn't mentioned any kind of fed fleet splitting so I don't know if that get's a thing.

 

[The Founder]

You obviously do not get what I say the issue is, and it is partly my fault for not properly explaining:
A, B, C and D are in a Federation.
The Federation has "No Shared Offensive Wars"/"War via Invitation only".

A and B declare war on X.
C and D stay at non-war with X. They very, very likely still dislike X. Enough to Close Borders.

The issues:
1. Reachability:
- Either A+B can attack from C+D territory, with X being unable to retaliate past his original borders.
- Or A+B can not attack from C+D territory (similar to how Naval Invasions do not work from non-beligerents in HoI4). Wich would again result in wars that can not be prosecuted due to no valid path existing. And a even more annoying special Rules for War Declarations (you need to declare with anyone that is on one of the paths).

2. Federation Fleet:
- Humans can plan ahead for "the Federation fleet will move away from/towards A+B soon"
- The AI can not. As was always teh case, it lives 100% in the "here and now". If their own Fleet + Federation Fleet is just enough to decide "we can take em" and they loose teh Fleet the day after declaration - that would be a AI trap.

You could require Disabeled Fed Fleet for "no Shared Offensive Wars". But that would still leave the reachability issue.

 

[skytta]

The issues:
1. Reachability:
- Either A+B can attack from C+D territory, with X being unable to retaliate past his original borders.
- Or A+B can not attack from C+D territory (similar to how Naval Invasions do not work from non-beligerents in HoI4). Wich would again result in wars that can not be prosecuted due to no valid path existing. And a even more annoying special Rules for War Declarations (you need to declare with anyone that is on one of the paths).

You know that there is the possibility of opening the border for the hole federation and you are normally only allowed to attack your enemy combatants.
An different solutions would be Border checks of the attacker. If they are not neighbor then you are not allowed to declare war. And so on multiple possibilities to deal with your concern.

2. Federation Fleet:
- Humans can plan ahead for "the Federation fleet will move away from/towards A+B soon"
- The AI can not. As was always teh case, it lives 100% in the "here and now". If their own Fleet + Federation Fleet is just enough to decide "we can take em" and they loose teh Fleet the day after declaration - that would be a AI trap.

I don't get exactly what you mean with that but if you meant that the federation president switches before you declare a ware that is bad planing I guess.

 

[The Founder]

You know that there is the possibility of opening the border for the hole federation and you are normally only allowed to attack your enemy combatants.

Wich is not an issue, as normally the whole Federation are enemy combatants.

I don't get exactly what you mean with that but if you meant that the federation president switches before you declare a ware that is bad planing I guess.

Wich part of "AI can not plan ahead" did you not get?
Or do you simply never play singleplayer?

 

[Pointyearedgit]

You obviously do not get what I say the issue is, and it is partly my fault for not properly explaining:
A, B, C and D are in a Federation.
The Federation has "No Shared Offensive Wars"/"War via Invitation only".

A and B declare war on X.
C and D stay at non-war with X. They very, very likely still dislike X. Enough to Close Borders.

The issues:
1. Reachability:
- Either A+B can attack from C+D territory, with X being unable to retaliate past his original borders.
- Or A+B can not attack from C+D territory (similar to how Naval Invasions do not work from non-beligerents in HoI4). Wich would again result in wars that can not be prosecuted due to no valid path existing. And a even more annoying special Rules for War Declarations (you need to declare with anyone that is on one of the paths).

2. Federation Fleet:
- Humans can plan ahead for "the Federation fleet will move away from/towards A+B soon"
- The AI can not. As was always teh case, it lives 100% in the "here and now". If their own Fleet + Federation Fleet is just enough to decide "we can take em" and they loose teh Fleet the day after declaration - that would be a AI trap.

You could require Disabeled Fed Fleet for "no Shared Offensive Wars". But that would still leave the reachability issue.

1) This is not unique to federations, it is 100% fair game with neutral empires in between as well. Therefore, not an issue to worry about.

2) The AI would need to understand this, true, but it also needs to understand this whole mechanic anyways.

 

[PirateJack]

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.

I also took it as a reference to the Mule from Asimov's Foundation series as well.