Stellaris Dev Diary #159 - Galactic Community

[methegrate]

To put it another way, right now diplomacy is self re-enforcing because it doesn't bring in other aspects of the game. It's very, "I like you because I like you, and because I like you I'll do things that make me like you more."

The way out of that is through asymmetric incentives. Diplomacy needs a series of deals you can make with other empires even when they don't like you, because they payoff has nothing to do with diplomacy. It needs the logic of, "I may not like you, but I want your money more than I dislike you."

And just as critically it needs that system to not be based on Big Ideas. We have first contact policies (that matter for all of 15 seconds), defensive pacts and new federations, but what diplomacy really needs is something to cover the long middle ground between meeting an alien and becoming best friends for life.

 

[MikiRules]

I really like that you keep adding new content. I am sure that i speak for many when I ask: Could you please just go back and "clean up". What i mean is to really look at the basics like the overall balance of the game and the behaviour of the AI. It seems that a lot of the DLC messes with this and there is never a real fix.

thank you

 

[SeekingEtermity]

So tiny that I've apparently missed them entirely, do elaborate.

Diplomatic Stances
Denouncing
Trading "Favors"
Sanctions
More empire types gaining the ability to join federations.
Envoys

There's probably more, and it's possible that some of that (like sanctions or denouncing) would be in the DLC even though there's no reason for them to not be in the base game. Others have either been directly confirmed to be in the base game, or are a part of mechanics that are confirmed to be in the base game.

 

[Monturiol]

Diplomatic Stances
Denouncing
Trading "Favors"
Sanctions
More empire types gaining the ability to join federations.
Envoys

Soooooo... nothing to do with CBs, which was the point in contention?

 

[Pointyearedgit]

Soooooo... nothing to do with CBs, which was the point in contention?

There was stuff to do with CBs, even if it wasn’t stated explicitly, it is heavily implied.

It depends on what Resolutions the Community has passed. As I mention in a different response, if you let the militarists have their way, they might pass resolutions that condone and enable "containment" of threats to the Community.



It means that you're doing something the Community has outlawed. By itself, it has no teeth. If the Community enacts certain Resolutions, you could get Denounced, have various Sanctions applied to you, or be a valid target for "corrective" action.

Also there is an achievement for humiliating an empire in the “supremacy” stance, so there might be interaction there as well.

 

[Belasias]

I believe that voting on resolutions is an incredible possibility of organically promoting the attraction of ethics in empires on the basis of actual decisions taken by the player himself and offer a different strategic perspective.

The idea is as simple as as associating each resolution with an ethical dichotomy (or set of them).

If the player votes for a resolution it will give +50% Ethic attraction to the ethics associated with the resolution and -25% Ethic attraction to the opposite ethics over the next 12 months. The opposite will occur if a resolution is voted against. If you abstain from voting, nothing will happen.

Example:

A player (Fanatic Authoritarian / Militarist ) decides to vote in favor of the last proposal presented in the Galactic Community Charter of Worker's Rights. This proposal is associated with the ethical dichotomy Egalitarian (in favor) and Authoritarian (against).

Having voted favorably, during the next 12 months your empire will suffer a 50% attraction to egalitarian ethics and a -25% attraction to authoritarian ethics. It is possible that this decision will end up influencing the politics of your empire.


If we want to expand and complicate this idea, it is possible to influence the internal politics of the empire based on the support of resolutions, giving even more importance to these decisions...

If the player votes for a resolution the factions that share ethics with the ethical dichotomy associated with the resolution will be affected.

A faction that shares positive ethics with the resolution will receive +10% happiness and a faction that is opposed to the positive ethics of the resolution will receive -25% happiness over the next 12 months.

Example

Unfortunately, the decision to vote in favor of the Charter of Worker's Rights proposal in the Galactic Community will discontent the Totalitarian faction and its generation of influence will be affected (not counting the increase in unhappiness among the population and the possible crime that this brings).


This same happiness modifier, or a similar one, can also be applied (or as an alternative) to the direct happiness of populations within the empire that share ethics or are opposed to the proposed resolution.

---

I am not sure if it would be complicated to implement these mechanics in the current system, but I do believe that as players, a change as simple as this, would bring us a new challenge at narrative and administrative level, causing small civil revolutions in our empire to go against the interests of citizens or promoting stability in our worlds by listening and supporting the peoples´ desires.

(Since I am completely unaware of the new political system, the numbers presented are only examples to illustrate my suggestion)

 

[brbonfire]

I believe that voting on resolutions is an incredible possibility of organically promoting the attraction of ethics in empires on the basis of actual decisions taken by the player himself and offer a different strategic perspective.

The idea is as simple as as associating each resolution with an ethical dichotomy (or set of them).

If the player votes for a resolution it will give +50% Ethic attraction to the ethics associated with the resolution and -25% Ethic attraction to the opposite ethics over the next 12 months. The opposite will occur if a resolution is voted against. If you abstain from voting, nothing will happen.

Example:

A player (Fanatic Authoritarian / Militarist ) decides to vote in favor of the last proposal presented in the Galactic Community Charter of Worker's Rights. This proposal is associated with the ethical dichotomy Egalitarian (in favor) and Authoritarian (against).

Having voted favorably, during the next 12 months your empire will suffer a 50% attraction to egalitarian ethics and a -25% attraction to authoritarian ethics. It is possible that this decision will end up influencing the politics of your empire.


If we want to expand and complicate this idea, it is possible to influence the internal politics of the empire based on the support of resolutions, giving even more importance to these decisions...

If the player votes for a resolution the factions that share ethics with the ethical dichotomy associated with the resolution will be affected.

A faction that shares positive ethics with the resolution will receive +10% happiness and a faction that is opposed to the positive ethics of the resolution will receive -25% happiness over the next 12 months.

Example

Unfortunately, the decision to vote in favor of the Charter of Worker's Rights proposal in the Galactic Community will discontent the Totalitarian faction and its generation of influence will be affected (not counting the increase in unhappiness among the population and the possible crime that this brings).


This same happiness modifier, or a similar one, can also be applied (or as an alternative) to the direct happiness of populations within the empire that share ethics or are opposed to the proposed resolution.

---

I am not sure if it would be complicated to implement these mechanics in the current system, but I do believe that as players, a change as simple as this, would bring us a new challenge at narrative and administrative level, causing small civil revolutions in our empire to go against the interests of citizens or promoting stability in our worlds by listening and supporting the peoples´ desires.

(Since I am completely unaware of the new political system, the numbers presented are only examples to illustrate my suggestion)

I like this, especially the part about faction unhappiness - but with the caveat that factions need to regain some of their teeth. If you're not expanding full tilt you can honestly ignore factions right now, and do what you want. If ignoring factions came with consequences - people don't just grumble if their ideals are ignored - then we'd soon accrete a pretty good system.

 

[Verx90]

I believe that voting on resolutions is an incredible possibility of organically promoting the attraction of ethics in empires on the basis of actual decisions taken by the player himself and offer a different strategic perspective.

The idea is as simple as as associating each resolution with an ethical dichotomy (or set of them).

If the player votes for a resolution it will give +50% Ethic attraction to the ethics associated with the resolution and -25% Ethic attraction to the opposite ethics over the next 12 months. The opposite will occur if a resolution is voted against. If you abstain from voting, nothing will happen.

Example:

A player (Fanatic Authoritarian / Militarist ) decides to vote in favor of the last proposal presented in the Galactic Community Charter of Worker's Rights. This proposal is associated with the ethical dichotomy Egalitarian (in favor) and Authoritarian (against).

Having voted favorably, during the next 12 months your empire will suffer a 50% attraction to egalitarian ethics and a -25% attraction to authoritarian ethics. It is possible that this decision will end up influencing the politics of your empire.


If we want to expand and complicate this idea, it is possible to influence the internal politics of the empire based on the support of resolutions, giving even more importance to these decisions...

If the player votes for a resolution the factions that share ethics with the ethical dichotomy associated with the resolution will be affected.

A faction that shares positive ethics with the resolution will receive +10% happiness and a faction that is opposed to the positive ethics of the resolution will receive -25% happiness over the next 12 months.

Example

Unfortunately, the decision to vote in favor of the Charter of Worker's Rights proposal in the Galactic Community will discontent the Totalitarian faction and its generation of influence will be affected (not counting the increase in unhappiness among the population and the possible crime that this brings).


This same happiness modifier, or a similar one, can also be applied (or as an alternative) to the direct happiness of populations within the empire that share ethics or are opposed to the proposed resolution.

---

I am not sure if it would be complicated to implement these mechanics in the current system, but I do believe that as players, a change as simple as this, would bring us a new challenge at narrative and administrative level, causing small civil revolutions in our empire to go against the interests of citizens or promoting stability in our worlds by listening and supporting the peoples´ desires.

(Since I am completely unaware of the new political system, the numbers presented are only examples to illustrate my suggestion)

my fear of something like this, its giving too much weight to the GC .... MAYBE there could be a progressive increase in repercursion based on the numbers of resolution that were made by the GC .

but if the GC start with such ( i know the number are just an example) an influence on an empire , there should be a major resistance from xenophobe against joining such an organization , i mean, if a GC can influence your state faction from the start, it is more likely a galatic federation , than a comunity .

 

[SeekingEtermity]

I like this, especially the part about faction unhappiness - but with the caveat that factions need to regain some of their teeth. If you're not expanding full tilt you can honestly ignore factions right now, and do what you want. If ignoring factions came with consequences - people don't just grumble if their ideals are ignored - then we'd soon accrete a pretty good system.

Factions used to matter tremendously, because faction approval defined the base happiness of their pops, and pop happiness defined pop production. If you had a faction at 20% approval, and another at 70% happiness, it was entirely likely that pops of the first faction produced 50% less resources. If there were many such pops, this was a Big Deal.

Now, everything in that process has been muted. Faction approval still modifies pop happiness, but at far less than 1:1. Pop happiness still (indirectly) modifies production, but it's planet-wide rather than by individual pop, and what it actually modifies is government approval (which is weighted by a multiplier based on things like pop statum and standard of living), which modifies planetary Stability (by up to +/-30), which modifies production (by up to +30% at 100 and -50% at 0). Thus, pop happiness barely matters anymore; increasing happiness across the board by 10 will increase approval by 10, which will increase stability by 6, which will increase production by 3.6% (assuming happiness wasn't already above 90% and stability wasn't below 50 or above 90). A far cry from the impact it used to have... and dropping faction approval now might have literally no impact on pop happiness at all! Faction approval only modifies pop happiness in bands (0-39 approval : -10 happiness, 40-59: 0, 60-79: +5, 80-100: +10), meaning the entire swing range of a faction's happiness modifier is only 20 points wide. To put it differently, across the range of 40-80 faction approval - by far the most common band, unless you get some factions you really can't please - faction approval gives 5 points of happiness for every 20 points of approval. Taking the above math (10 points of approval gives 3.6% base production bonus), this means that an extra 10% faction approval, on average, gives only a 0.9% base production bonus to the faction's pops! Finally, due to population approval weighting, if a faction is pissed off but everybody in that faction is worker or slave tier (and you aren't running a very high standard of living), it somehow manages to be even more irrelevant.

Additionally, factions used to not give any influence at all unless above 50% approval, and the amount they gave scaled linearly between 50% and 100% approval (so if they were at 75% approval, they gave 50% of their max influence). Now, factions give influence at any positive approval, scaling linearly across the entire range from 0% to 100% (so a faction at 75% approval now gives 75% of its max influence). Because the max influence from factions wasn't changed, this is a straight-up buff to influence from factions (and thus quite nice for egalitarians), since it's almost never possible to have all (or any) of your factions at 100% approval. Looked at another way, though, it's an evisceration of the entire faction system. It just doesn't matter much anymore.

One last edit: These massive changes to happiness haven't yet been balanced in the various modifiers. The Peace Festivals edict (base cost 200 influence, gives +10 happiness for the duration) used to be a major perk of being Pacifist, and now is basically only worth using if you've badly mis-managed your pops or are about to hit the influence cap. The Champion of the People trait for rulers (+5 happiness) used to be, if not top-tier, at least quite decent - it was a meaningful bonus to resource production of all kinds from all pops, unless you had them up to 100% happiness already - and is now such garbage, it makes me mad if my ruler gains it because of the opportunity cost of not getting something - anything - useful.

 

[Verx90]

Factions used to matter tremendously, because faction approval defined the base happiness of their pops, and pop happiness defined pop production. If you had a faction at 20% approval, and another at 70% happiness, it was entirely likely that pops of the first faction produced 50% less resources. If there were many such pops, this was a Big Deal.

Now, everything in that process has been muted. Faction approval still modifies pop happiness, but at far less than 1:1. Pop happiness still (indirectly) modifies production, but it's planet-wide rather than by individual pop, and what it actually modifies is government approval (which is weighted by a multiplier based on things like pop statum and standard of living), which modifies planetary Stability (by up to +/-30), which modifies production (by up to +30% at 100 and -50% at 0). Thus, pop happiness barely matters anymore; increasing happiness across the board by 10 will increase approval by 10, which will increase stability by 6, which will increase production by 3.6% (assuming happiness wasn't already above 90% and stability wasn't below 50 or above 90). A far cry from the impact it used to have... and dropping faction approval now might have literally no impact on pop happiness at all! Faction approval only modifies pop happiness in bands (0-39 approval : -10 happiness, 40-59: 0, 60-79: +5, 80-100: +10), meaning the entire swing range of a faction's happiness modifier is only 20 points wide. To put it differently, across the range of 40-80 faction approval - by far the most common band, unless you get some factions you really can't please - faction approval gives 5 points of happiness for every 20 points of approval. Taking the above math (10 points of approval gives 3.6% base production bonus), this means that an extra 10% faction approval, on average, gives only a 0.9% base production bonus to the faction's pops! Finally, due to population approval weighting, if a faction is pissed off but everybody in that faction is worker or slave tier (and you aren't running a very high standard of living), it somehow manages to be even more irrelevant.

Additionally, factions used to not give any influence at all unless above 50% approval, and the amount they gave scaled linearly between 50% and 100% approval (so if they were at 75% approval, they gave 50% of their max influence). Now, factions give influence at any positive approval, scaling linearly across the entire range from 0% to 100% (so a faction at 75% approval now gives 75% of its max influence). Because the max influence from factions wasn't changed, this is a straight-up buff to influence from factions (and thus quite nice for egalitarians), since it's almost never possible to have all (or any) of your factions at 100% approval. Looked at another way, though, it's an evisceration of the entire faction system. It just doesn't matter much anymore.

but with the add of influence cost in GC actions , and problably diplomacy actions , the need of influence will be greater than ever , making it all more worthwide to make big factions happy . i guess they will have to test it out and balance it, or we will have to see it and balance it ... i already read of ppl lamenting the "more influence cost when we make so low influence" so your argument its kinda unvalid for most of the ppl , that seems to have too little influence in theyr games .

 

[JimmyTomorrow]

I hope there's a reworking of the democracy mechanics for individual empires as well here. Elections are too simple and ... boring. There are no consequences for decision-making, for example, and presidents don't get rewarded or penalized for fulfilling/not fulfilling mandates.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

but with the add of influence cost in GC actions , and problably diplomacy actions , the need of influence will be greater than ever , making it all more worthwide to make big factions happy . i guess they will have to test it out and balance it, or we will have to see it and balance it ... i already read of ppl lamenting the "more influence cost when we make so low influence" so your argument its kinda unvalid for most of the ppl , that seems to have too little influence in theyr games .

It's not that the value of influence changed. That's as great as ever, and it always has been one of the most vitally important resources. The supply has gotten a little better lately (faction changes, a few other sources) while the demand has remained largely constant, but overall it's still a scarce, precious thing. That hasn't changed, and adding more sinks for influence will just make it more so.

However, the changes to factions mean it matters far less whether you keep them happy. Yes, you want them (at least the big ones) happy because they provide that precious purple manainfluence, but demand for influence still almost always outstrips supply. Increasing demand a little bit more isn't going to have much impact on the value of the sources; the demand is already pretty inelastic.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

I hope there's a reworking of the democracy mechanics for individual empires as well here. Elections are too simple and ... boring. There are no consequences for decision-making, for example, and presidents don't get rewarded or penalized for fulfilling/not fulfilling mandates.

In theory, Democratic elections are influenced by whether or not the mandate was fulfilled. I'm not sure whether that works correctly for the new mandates that only fulfill at the end of the term. Oligarchic-style elections (oligarchy, dictator, and corporate) never have any weights, which just seems so bloody stupid. What kind of government council / ruling elite / board of directors chooses a new leader by picking four candidates out of a hat and then rolling a d4 to choose among them?

 

[DrFranknfurter]

my fear of something like this, its giving too much weight to the GC .... MAYBE there could be a progressive increase in repercursion based on the numbers of resolution that were made by the GC .

but if the GC start with such ( i know the number are just an example) an influence on an empire , there should be a major resistance from xenophobe against joining such an organization , i mean, if a GC can influence your state faction from the start, it is more likely a galatic federation , than a comunity .

I really like the idea and I think it'd actually help with xenophobes that wouldn't otherwise make sense in the proposed system as it currently stands - they could gain happiness for abstaining from things or voting in a way that minimizes the effects on their empire. It would make sense if isolationist factions in particular (inward perfection empires) were disgruntled at the idea of joining a galactic community and voting on issues but are made happier by abstaining from resolutions that don't directly concern them. They could still vote to keep any policy they have active (so keeping slavery rather than banning it, keeping AI rights rather than banning it... maintaining the status-quo, that sort of thing).

Factions used to matter tremendously, because faction approval defined the base happiness of their pops, and pop happiness defined pop production. If you had a faction at 20% approval, and another at 70% happiness, it was entirely likely that pops of the first faction produced 50% less resources. If there were many such pops, this was a Big Deal.

Now, everything in that process has been muted. Faction approval still modifies pop happiness, but at far less than 1:1. Pop happiness still (indirectly) modifies production, but it's planet-wide rather than by individual pop, and what it actually modifies is government approval (which is weighted by a multiplier based on things like pop statum and standard of living), which modifies planetary approval (by up to +/-30), which modifies production (by up to +30 at 100 and -50 at 0). Thus, pop happiness barely matters anymore; increasing happiness across the board by 10 will increase approval by 10, which will increase stability by 6, which will increase production by 3.6% (assuming happiness wasn't already above 90% and stability wasn't below 50 or above 90). A far cry from the impact it used to have... and dropping faction approval now might have literally no impact on pop happiness at all! Faction approval only modifies pop happiness in bands (0-39 approval : -10 happiness, 40-59: 0, 60-79: +5, 80-100: +10), meaning the entire swing range of a faction's happiness modifier is only 20 points wide. To put it differently, across the range of 40-80 faction approval - by far the most common band, unless you get some factions you really can't please - faction approval gives 5 points of happiness for every 20 points of approval. Taking the above math (10 points of approval gives 3.6% base production bonus), this means that an extra 10% faction approval, on average, gives only a 0.9% base production bonus to the faction's pops! Finally, due to population approval weighting, if a faction is pissed off but everybody in that faction is worker or slave tier (and you aren't running a very high standard of living), it somehow manages to be even more irrelevant.

Additionally, factions used to not give any influence at all unless above 50% approval, and the amount they gave scaled linearly between 50% and 100% approval (so if they were at 75% approval, they gave 50% of their max influence). Now, factions give influence at any positive approval, scaling linearly across the entire range from 0% to 100% (so a faction at 75% approval now gives 75% of its max influence). Because the max influence from factions wasn't changed, this is a straight-up buff to influence from factions (and thus quite nice for egalitarians), since it's almost never possible to have all (or any) of your factions at 100% approval. Looked at another way, though, it's an evisceration of the entire faction system. It just doesn't matter much anymore.

I agree entirely with your analysis of the changes to the system. I think part of the problem is the additive nature of all the modifiers. If happiness returned to being an multiplicative modifier... so 0 happiness reduced total pop output to (for example) x0.25 then factions would instantly matter... but also faction demands like extended peace would have the potential to cripple your economy during wars, a shift from +5 to -10 could cause you to enter a death-spiral in the middle of a war as your income drops below expenses and you have the added cost of un-docked fleets to contend with. It would hit the player hardest when you really don't want the player to be trying to balance their economy and manage planets - during war. All the Faction demands stop being flavour and then need a strong balance pass to make sure you aren't crippled if you're e.g. materialist with grand admiral AI players who have higher tech, which causes you to have low happiness which causes you to have lower research output which stops you from catching up... that sort of feedback loop. e.g.
Prosperity
Issue. Possibility. Fulfillment
Solid Liquidity. Owns a Planet beyond their Capital World Empire has at least 5000 energy in storage[2] +10 0
[2] Tooltip disagrees with real value
Defensive Stance. Always. Setting War Policy to Defensive Wars Only +10 -10
Keep the Peace. Always. Empire is not at war +5 –10
Nonviolence 3+ Communications. Empire did not enter a war as an Attacker and is not on the side of the Attackers in any other way in the past 20 years 0 –30
If you went to war with those faction demands active, then you'd get -30 for 20 years, and +10 to -10 for switching war policy for 10 years till you can change it back and +5 to -10 for the duration of the war would mean -65 for the prosperity faction... so going to war offensively would be effectively impossible if their faction had enough support as it would zero out your entire pop output (unless the numbers were changed you'd spend centuries hoping for other factions to grow enough to let you act against their interests).

So I think while it would be great to have happiness directly influencing pop output... it has the potential for dangerous repercussions with existing faction demands to cripple players and the AI when they should be focusing on warfare. But drastically increasing the effect of happiness on influence generation would have a smaller more gradual effect on your empire (it'd mostly just stop you making claims, new systems, edicts and new megastructures... bad but not crippling). So I'd support that sort of change.

I wouldn't mind if it increased crime more though, as the effects of crime are slower and smaller with more ways of managing it (enforcers) so if low happiness dramatically increased crime, and high crime in turn crippled output with a multiplier then you could pre-build some enforcers before you do something that's going to upset everyone and keep a stable empire (police state) even though everyone hates your political actions. Or you could enact military law after declaring war to keep the rioting pacifists from halting your economy. Which fits nicely too.

 

[The Founder]

Hopefully it will involve similar political maneuvering

While we do not have anything like the Character depth of a CK2, there is the whole "Envoy" thing.
And of course all but the Hegemony are a Forced Democracy.

I think you are missing how these are special, they are *binding* contacts to help another empire diplomatically. Yes, they are tradable (just like loyalty in dev clashes ...), but swapping favors allows you to help another empire and *guarantee* they help you later.

Thus far they are only truly binding on the Senate Floor.
It is not confirmed they are binding for other Diplomatic actions. It could just be Acceptance modifier/Bribe.

2 rival super federation is more representative compared to 2 galactic council or add more things in federations.

The Galactic Community is the UN.
The Galactic Council the UN Security Council.

I wonder if the Interstellar Assembly will play a big role in all this, such as an empire having one in their territory has bonuses added such as less influence costs and diplomatic weight modifiers.

I bet it will. Between Diplomatic Weight, Favors and Envoys there are now at least 3 new Diplomatic Mechanics. Plenty of room for the existing stuff to diversify.

I wonder if we can have resolutions to force wars to end? Or wars to earn favours? Or resolutions to grant casus belli?

Resolutions to end war would only work as Emergency Measure from the Council. Otherwise it might be over before the resolution is even voted on.
Wars to earn Favors? From a 3rd Party propably. IIRC, there already is a mechanic of a 3rd Party gifiting your resources when you fight a shared enemy. It would be easy to change that to give Favors.
Being in breach of Galactic Law has no effect on it's own. But you can vote on Resolutions that sanction the Breachers. Wich can go all the way up to special Casusl Belli.

Anyone who's not a Pacifist can already DoW whoever they want, whenever they want.
Why have some sort of intricate Galactic Community CB when Conquest / Humiliate already exists?

Stellaris isn't like CK2, where scheming your way to the correct CB is half the game.
In space you've already got all the CBs you could ever want.

I know that in your world view "nothing of relevance changes". But the rest of us have a bit more realistic view on this Update.

Indeed. They're showing off the DLC before the Update, and that worries me, because none of this DLC stuff has a snowball's chance in hell of working without major changes to diplomacy.

You know you can view the Dev Responses before you spout something that wrong. It would really help with us consdering your opinion remotely relevant.

Large parts of the Galactic Community will be in the free patch, with some things like Galactic Council being in the expansion.

 

[The Founder]

In theory, Democratic elections are influenced by whether or not the mandate was fulfilled. I'm not sure whether that works correctly for the new mandates that only fulfill at the end of the term. Oligarchic-style elections (oligarchy, dictator, and corporate) never have any weights, which just seems so bloody stupid. What kind of government council / ruling elite / board of directors chooses a new leader by picking four candidates out of a hat and then rolling a d4 to choose among them?

In Oligarchies there actually are weights - for the selection:

# Theocratic Dictatorship
gov_theocratic_dictatorship = {
    ruler_title = RT_PATRIARCH
    ruler_title_female = RT_MATRIARCH

    election_candidates = {
        modifier = {
            add = 100
            leader_class = ruler
        }
        modifier = {
            add = 10
            leader_class = governor
        }
    }

    possible = {
        has_authority = auth_dictatorial
        OR = {
            has_ethic = ethic_spiritualist
            has_ethic = ethic_fanatic_spiritualist          
        }
    }

    weight = {
        base = 5
    }
}

# Theocratic Oligarchy
gov_theocratic_oligarchy = {
    ruler_title = RT_CHIEF_PRECENTOR
    ruler_title_female = RT_CHIEF_PRECENTOR_FEMALE

    election_candidates = {
        modifier = {
            add = 100
            leader_class = ruler
        }
        modifier = {
            add = 10
            leader_class = governor
        }
    }

    possible = {
        has_authority = auth_oligarchic
        OR = {
            has_ethic = ethic_spiritualist
            has_ethic = ethic_fanatic_spiritualist          
        }
    }

    weight = {
        base = 5
    }
}

Just who of the 4 is picked if you Abstain, that is random

 

[Methone]

You know you can view the Dev Responses before you spout something that wrong. It would really help with us consdering your opinion remotely relevant.

Yeah, I saw the dev posts. None of them are relevant to my concerns. Thanks for jumping to conclusions though.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

If you could trade favours for influence, that could allow a great source of purple mana in an instant, at the cost of reduced clout during GC sessions (or vice versa, selling influence in order to gain favours for resolutions).

This would instant gratification for influence costs (represented by empires providing you with additional logistics/man power, whatever you want to call it) but be uncertain what favours they may ask of you in the future ("remember when we helped you build those starbases? Well now we need you to vote for this bill")

 

[Methone]

If you could trade favours for influence, that could allow a great source of purple mana in an instant, at the cost of reduced clout during GC sessions (or vice versa, selling influence in order to gain favours for resolutions).

This would instant gratification for influence costs (represented by empires providing you with additional logistics/man power, whatever you want to call it) but be uncertain what favours they may ask of you in the future ("remember when we helped you build those starbases? Well now we need you to vote for this bill")

Yeah, there's a lot that can open up with Favors, assuming they're unshackled from being purely for resolutions.

 

[J.P.Cliffer]

The Galactic Community is the UN.
The Galactic Council the UN Security Council.

And I think about 2 superpower bloc like USSR and OTAN with influence point to lure the neutral into their team or look like the war in heaven bloc at least.